Where's proof of CONVICTION?
Greegor
> Going for plausible deniability again, Hanson?
>
> Why did you avoid the archives? Searching on google news withOUT going
> to the year, or withOUT using the archives, returns only recent news. It
> says so on the google news search page.
>
> Of course you innocently missed that, right?
>
> But then you have never failed to use archives before to stalk others.
> Mistake or lie. You tell us.
> Care to explain all your lies about Frohman, or did you just ""not
> know?"" LOL
>
> TOP (The Other Pangborn)
The best it shows is an indictment and a partner who turned states
evidence.
Why is there no story about CONVICTION?
You DO know that an indictment is not a conviction, right?
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0F57451B34D48811&p_docnum=1
CHARGES SAY MAN PIRATED VIDEOS
Illegally taped concerts sold
BYLINE: Wes Hills Dayton Daily News
DATE: August 8, 2002
PUBLICATION: Dayton Daily News (OH)
EDITION: CITY
SECTION: LOCAL
PAGE: B1
DAYTON - A Troy man was indicted Wednesday on charges he conspired to
sell on the Internet pirated videos of the Dave Matthews Band, Bruce
Springsteen and other performers.
Glen Frohman of 513 W. Market St. also was charged with selling
unauthorized videos on Oct. 5, 2001. Frohman faces 10 years in federal
prison if convicted on both charges.
The indictment claims Frohman, "on numerous occasions, would either
alone or with the assistance of other individuals, tape performances
of musical entertainers without the consent of said entertainers and
offer these videotapes for sale on the Internet through a Web site.
"Customers were instructed to send payment in the form of a check or
money order" to a post office box in Troy controlled by Frohman, the
indictment claims.
The "overt acts" in the conspiracy allege Frohman:
* Sent through the U.S. mail Oct. 5 a videotape of a live musical
performance of the Dave Matthews Band.
* Sent on Dec. 11 a videotape of a live musical performance of Bruce
Springsteen.
In a sworn statement, Postal Inspector M.E. Arthur details how the
case developed:
Arthur states that he was contacted Aug. 15 by the agent for musician
Eric Johnson regarding Frohman advertising a Web site offering to sell
concert videos from numerous musicians.
On Sept. 25, Arthur states, he used an undercover name to place an
order through the Web site for the Dave Matthews Band's Tabernacle and
Austin City Limits .
Arthur states that after he received the videos for $39, Wendy Yascur,
coordinator of evidence control and anti-piracy special projects for
the Recording Industry Association of America, was contacted.
Yascur sent the videotapes to Coran Capshaw, manager for the Dave
Matthews Band, who provided a sworn statement stating the band had
"never licensed, consented to or otherwise authorized neither Glen
Frohman . . . to manufacture, distribute or offer to sell the videos
of the live musical performances."
On Dec. 11, Arthur states, he ordered five more videos - live musical
performances of Tori Amos, Bruce Springsteen, Eric Clapton, Prince and
Phish - and received them after sending $153.
Again, Yascur forwarded the tapes to the musicians' management
companies to confirm they had been pirated.
Arthur also cites an e-mail message allegedly sent by Frohman to Jim
Weiss, president, The I Trade Group Inc., in which he states, "Yeah, I
deal in bootleg tapes . . . (video currently, but it was audio for 15
years.)"
Frohman also states he has "been running an online business with my
tapes for eight years."
Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy
business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's Troy
residence on June 20.
Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
womanGoddess
> On Nov 2, 1:17 pm, TOP <T...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > Going for plausible deniability again, Hanson?
>
> > Why did you avoid the archives? Searching on google news withOUT going
> > to the year, or withOUT using the archives, returns only recent news. It
> > says so on the google news search page.
>
> > Of course you innocently missed that, right?
>
> > But then you have never failed to use archives before to stalk others.
> > Mistake or lie. You tell us.
>
>
> > Care to explain all your lies about Frohman, or did you just ""not
> > know?"" LOL
>
> > TOP (The Other Pangborn)
>
> The best it shows is an indictment and a partner who turned states
> evidence.
> Why is there no story about CONVICTION?
> You DO know that an indictment is not a conviction, right?
>
>
> http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0F5...
And the idiot once again posts something copyrighted by a
newspaper......
Heres a clue, Greg. Compare that with the list of MPAA convictions on
the web site whose addie I posted some weeks ago. If you actually
have some cognitive thought, you can easily figure out which
conviction is his,
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
Know your scum--- http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
womanGoddess
Oh greg, here's where I posted Frohman's convict number:
I even had a link where people can see for themselves in the post.
So Greg, are you still claiming that he was never convicted?
Greegor
X > And the idiot once again posts something
X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
> > Heres a clue, Greg. Compare that with the list of MPAA convictions on
> > the web site whose addie I posted some weeks ago. If you actually
> > have some cognitive thought, you can easily figure out which
> > conviction is his,
>
> > Moe
> > Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
> > " A vampire cop? REALLY?"
> > "http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
>
> > Know your scum---http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>
> Oh greg, here's where I posted Frohman's convict number:
Moe > I even had a link where people can see for themselves in the
post.
The link is broken and as far as I can tell never did work.
http://inmateloc.bop.gov/locatorservlet/gov.bop.inmatelocator.FindInmateHttpServle
Let's break that down:
Dead. Is it in the internet archive?
What STATE would that be for?
Why no designation of state or Federal?
Why is there an http in the MIDDLE of that link?
Why is the word servlet chopped off even
way back in 2004?
http://inmateloc.bop.gov/locatorservlet/gov.bop.inmatelocator.FindInmateHttpServle
How could this LINK have EVER worked with
http in the middle and servlet chopped off?
You said people could check for themselves.
But that's not really true, is it Maureen?
Moe > So Greg, are you still claiming that he was never convicted?
I never claimed that he wasn't convicted.
I claimed you stalked him for over 10 years
and haven't posted online verifiable PROOF
that he was CONVICTED.
I saw proof he was indicted, and one of your
anonymous henchmen posted it as if proof
of indictment was proof of conviction.
Did you refer to 43481-061 in any other posts online?
Is that a state or Federal number?
You DO know that an indictment is NOT a conviction, right, Moe?
krp
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2heaf5lpa04mekmmk...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:17:04 -0800 (PST), Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [Snips for brevity]
>
>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy
>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's Troy
>>> > > residence on June 20.
>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>>>
>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>>
>>X > And the idiot once again posts something
>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>>
>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>
> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not
> allow for the copying of the entire work.
Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous "Betamax"
case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
Kent Wills
wrote:
Cite?
"(CONTEXT REMOVED AS TO THE BELOW CLAIM)"
Kenneth Robert Pangborn admitting he alters the context of posts
when he replies.
MID FyUom.1363$Jd7....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net
krp
>>>
>>>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy
>>>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's
>>>>> > > Troy
>>>>> > > residence on June 20.
>>>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>>>>>
>>>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>>>>
>>>>X > And the idiot once again posts something
>>>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>>>>
>>>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
>>>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>>>
>>> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously.
>>> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not
>>> allow for the copying of the entire work.
>>
>>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous
>>"Betamax"
>>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
>
> Cite?
You can't be THAT stupid. Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.
READ you illiterate ASSHOLE;
"Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of
individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting
does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use."
http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=betamaxcase
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technology/articles/groksterprimer_033805.htm
Now what IDIOTIC comeback can we expect from our resident IDIOT POLACK????
Greegor
X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
G > So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
G > know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
KBW > Fair use allows you to copy portions for
KBW > discussion. It does not allow for the
KBW > copying of the entire work.
KBW > I've explained this to you in the past.
Got a LINK to where you ""explained"" this in the past?
KBW > I even cited where in copyright law you
KBW > will find this.
All the better for you to LINK to same!
KBW > Yes, you think you're exempt from all
KBW > criminal and civil law. Your record, in
KBW > addition to your current actions, proves this.
See further below regarding your record.
Kent, Please tell me what you THINK you know about
the FAIR USE exception to copyright law.
Please describe what the background and
INTENTION of the FAIR USE exception is.
Is this going to be another game where you
make strong claims and then when proven
wrong you blame the statements onto OTHERS?
Like when you claimed Kim is a male?
Please make it clear what parts you personally
BELIEVE and what parts you think you
can weasel out of and blame onto other
people you are parroting.
I am still fairly amused that some anonymous
schmuck thought he had PROVED Glen
had been convicted using only proof that
Glen had been INDICTED.
You DO know that indictment is NOT conviction, right?
Do you think Moe does, and her idiot anonymous ""helper""?
Can you find any more on 43481-061 or Glen Frohman?
Was that YOU who posted the anonymous idiocy, Kent?
You seem to exhibit some subtle sort of ownership
of the hollow argument on Copyright v FAIR USE.
Kent Bradley Wills AKA Compuelf DOB Jan 8 1969 Felony Garage Burglar
used teen as accomplice
Kent's Appeal
IN PRINTED LAW BOOKS
West's North Western Reporter
Second Series
A Unit of the National Reporter System
Volume 696 N.W.2d
Cite as 696 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 2005)
Kent's Appeal
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/states/Iowa/04-0202.asp.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
http://www.assess.co.polk.ia.us/cgi-bin/seephoto/photosize.cgi?gp=802415452029&size=Large
Notice that KENT made claims re sale of 202 NW College apartment
building
That's geoparcel gp=802415452029
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
( Step by step instructions elsewhere with name Kent B Wills )
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
http://www.rogersgis.com/zoom/Residential_Development/indexfull.htm
http://www.arcountydata.com/county.asp?county=Benton
TWO of Kent Wills' usenet newsgroup identities:
Do It Yourself Instructions to look up Kent's record
Iowa Department of Corrections records for Kent
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
Name Kent Bradley Wills [ As Collected Sept 13, 2009 ]
Offender Number 1155768
Sex M
Birth Date 01/08/1969
Age 40
Location
Offense
County Of Commitment
Commitment Date
Duration
TDD/SDD *
* TDD = Tentative Discharge Date
* SDD = Supervision Discharge Date
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 12/16/2008
Probation C Felony Polk 12/16/2008
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 11/25/2003
IN PRINTED LAW BOOKS
West's North Western Reporter
Second Series
A Unit of the National Reporter System
Volume 696 N.W.2d
Cite as 696 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 2005)
Kent's Appeal
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/states/Iowa/04-0202.asp.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 31 / 04-0202
Filed May 6, 2005
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
KENT BRADLEY WILLS,
Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk
County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.
Defendant appeals claiming ineffective
assistance of counsel. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender,
and Tricia Johnston, Assistant State
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin
Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, John P.
Sarcone, County Attorney, and John Judisch,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
WIGGINS, Justice.
Kent Wills appeals his conviction for
second-degree burglary contending that
an attached garage is a separate occupied
structure from that of the living quarters
of the residence. In this appeal, we must
determine whether trial counsel was
ineffective for (1) failing to move for
judgment of acquittal on the basis there
was insufficient evidence to convict Wills
of second-degree burglary when he entered
an attached garage of a residence when no
persons were present in the garage, but
when persons were present in the living
quarters; and (2) failing to object to a
jury instruction based on this same
argument. Because we find there was no
legal basis for the motion for judgment
of acquittal or the objection to the jury
instruction, Wills' trial counsel was not
ineffective. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Around 1 a.m., an Ankeny resident called
the local police to report that a car
alarm sounded in the resident's
neighborhood. The city dispatched a police
officer to the location. Observing nothing
unusual, the officer left the area, only
to be stopped a couple of blocks later
by a person who informed the officer he
had witnessed someone running from the
area of the car alarm. As the officer
started driving back to the area of the
car alarm, he noticed a person walking
on the sidewalk. The officer asked the
person, a minor, if he had noticed anybody
running from the area. The minor answered
that he had not. While the officer and
another officer were speaking to the minor,
another resident of the neighborhood
arrived in her car and informed the
officers that she had observed two people,
one of whom was heavy set with a blinking
light on his back pocket, walking in the
area of her neighbor's residence. She
observed the heavier-set individual, later
identified as Wills, enter her neighbor's
attached garage through an unlocked service
door. She further observed a smaller
individual standing by a van parked in
the neighbor's driveway.
The officers eventually let the minor leave
even though they found a large amount of
coins, a flashlight, and an electronic
pocket organizer in his pockets. After
releasing the minor, the police officers
drove to the residence where the neighbor
observed the two suspicious people and
woke the owner. The owner, his wife,
and two daughters were in the residence
sleeping at the time. After a search
of his vehicles, the owner discovered
change and an electronic pocket organizer
were missing from the vehicles. The
owner's daughter reported a diamond ring
and some change were missing from her
vehicle. The officers then contacted
the minor's parents, who informed the
officers the minor was with Wills. After
the officers questioned the minor again,
he admitted his involvement in the theft
and implicated Wills in the burglary.
Although Wills denied involvement in the
burglary, the officers arrested him.
The State filed a trial information
charging Wills with second-degree
burglary. The State later amended the
information to include two additional
charges of burglary in the third degree
and using a juvenile to commit an
indictable offense.
The jury returned a verdict finding Wills
guilty of the crimes of burglary in the
second degree, burglary in the third
degree, and using a juvenile to commit
an indictable offense. Wills appeals his
conviction for second-degree burglary
claiming ineffective assistance of
counsel.
II. Scope of Review.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
are derived from the Sixth Amendment of the
United States Constitution. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-86, 104 S.
Ct. 2052, 2063-64, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 691-93
(1984). Our review for a claim involving
violations of the Constitution is de novo.
State v. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d 95, 100
(Iowa 2004). We normally preserve
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
for postconviction relief actions. State
v. Carter, 602 N.W. 2d 818, 820 (Iowa 1999).
However, we will address such claims on
direct appeal when the record is sufficient
to permit a ruling. State v. Artzer,
609 N.W.2d 526, 531 (Iowa 2000). The
appellate record in the present case is
sufficient to allow us to address Wills'
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
on direct appeal.
In order for a defendant to succeed on a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
the defendant must prove: (1) counsel
failed to perform an essential duty and
(2) prejudice resulted. Id. Prejudice
results when "there is a reasonable
probability that, but for the counsel's
unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different."
State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 378
(Iowa 1998) (quoting Strickland, 466
U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068,
80 L. Ed. 2d at 698). Wills' arguments
also raise issues of statutory
interpretation, which we review for
correction of errors at law. State v.
Wolford Corp., 689 N.W.2d 471, 473 (Iowa 2004).
III. Analysis.
To find Wills guilty of burglary in the
second degree, the State had to prove
Wills perpetrated a burglary "in or
upon an occupied structure in which one
or more persons are present . . . ." Iowa
Code § 713.5(2) (2003) (emphasis added).
In this appeal, Wills first contends his
trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to move for a judgment of acquittal on
the basis there was insufficient evidence
to support a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage, there were persons
present in or upon the occupied structure.
Wills concedes the garage was an occupied
structure, but argues the living quarters
and the attached garage are separate and
independent occupied structures; therefore,
the jury could not have found there were
people present in the attached garage
at the time of the burglary.
The Code defines an "occupied structure" as:
[A]ny building, structure, appurtenances
to buildings and structures, land, water
or air vehicle, or similar place adapted
for overnight accommodation of persons,
or occupied by persons for the purpose of
carrying on business or other activity
therein, or for the storage or safekeeping
of anything of value. Such a structure
is an "occupied structure" whether or not
a person is actually present.
Id. § 702.12.
Wills relies on State v. Smothers, 590
N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 1999), to argue the
garage and the living quarters are separate
and independent occupied structures. In
Smothers, two separate and distinct
businesses connected by interior fire doors
were operated in the same structure.
590 N.W.2d at 723. We held the defendant
committed two burglaries by entering each
business because "[t]he facility's
construction history and physical make-up
demonstrate that the portions are
independent working units which constitute
'[a] combination of materials to form a
construction for occupancy [or] use.'" Id.
Smothers is not at odds with the present
case because the living quarters and the
garage are not separate or independent
units of the residence.
Our review of the record reveals the garage
in question was a three-car attached garage
separated from the living quarters by a
door. The same roof covered the garage as
the rest of the residence. The living
quarters surrounded the garage on two sides.
It was structurally no different from any
other room in the residence.
The garage was a functional part of the
residence. On the night of the incident,
the door was unlocked. The owner of the
residence used two stalls in the garage to
park the family vehicles. The owner used
the third stall for his motorcycle. As
such, the garage and the living quarters
are a single "structure" or "building"
functioning as an integral part of the
family residence. Thus, the residence
including the garage is a single
"occupied structure" under section 702.12.
See, e.g., People v. Ingram, 48 Cal. Rptr.
2d 256 (Ct. App.1995) (holding defendant's
entry into an attached garage constituted
first-degree burglary because the garage
was attached to the house; therefore,
burglary of the garage was burglary of
an inhabited dwelling house); People v.
Cunningham, 637 N.E.2d 1247, 1252 (Ill.
App. Ct. 1994) (holding "ordinarily an
attached garage is a 'dwelling' because
it is part of the structure in which
the owner or occupant lives");
State v. Lara, 587 P.2d 52, 53
(N.M. Ct. App. 1978) (holding "burglary
of the [attached] garage was burglary of
the dwelling house because the garage was
a part of the structure used as living
quarters"); People v. Green, 141 A.D.2d
760, 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) (holding
"[s]ince the garage in the present case
was structurally part of a building
which was used for overnight lodging of
various persons, it must be considered
as part of a dwelling"); White v. State,
630 S.W. 2d 340, 342 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982)
(holding an attached garage under the
same roof as the home would be considered
a habitation within the purview of the
penal code because the garage is a
structure appurtenant to and connected
to the house); State v. Murbach, 843 P.
2d 551, 553 (Wash. Ct. App 1993)
(holding the definition of a dwelling
under Washington's burglary statute
included an attached garage).
Had Wills' trial counsel moved for a
judgment of acquittal on the basis there
was insufficient evidence to support
a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage there were no persons
present in or upon the occupied
structure, it would have been overruled
by the court because the owner and his
family were present in the residence at
the time of the burglary.
Wills also claims his counsel was
ineffective for failing to object to
the jury instruction used by the district
court on the same ground; that the
living quarters were a separate and
independent occupied structure from the
attached garage. The instruction as
given stated:
The State must prove all of the following
elements of Burglary in the Second
Degree as to Count I:
1. On or about the 12th day of August,
2003, the defendant or someone he aided
and abetted broke into or entered the
residence at . . . .
2. The residence at . . . was an occupied
structure as defined in Instruction No. 29.
3. The defendant or the person he aided
and abetted did not have permission or
authority to break into the residence at ...
4. The defendant or the person he aided
and abetted did so with the specific
intent to commit a theft therein.
5. During the incident persons were present
in or upon the occupied structure.
If the State has proved all of the elements,
the defendant is guilty of Burglary in the
Second Degree. If the State has failed to prove
any of the elements, the defendant is not
guilty of Burglary in the Second Degree and
you will then consider the charge of
Attempted Burglary in the Second Degree
explained in Instruction No. 21.
(Emphasis added.)
Wills' claim is without merit. As we have
discussed, the residence is the one and
only "occupied structure" under the facts
of this case. Had Wills' trial counsel
made this objection to the instruction,
it would have been overruled.
Therefore, Wills' trial counsel is not
ineffective for failing to move
for a judgment of acquittal or objecting
to the instruction because there was no
legal basis for the motion or objection.
See State v. Hochmuth, 585 N.W.2d 234,
238 (Iowa 1998) (holding trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise an
issue that has no merit).
IV. Disposition.
We affirm the judgment of the district
court because Wills' trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise
meritless issues.
AFFIRMED.
---------------------------------
Pay close attention to past owners of 202 NW College Ave.
Kent made affirmative claims about the property online.
Kent's folks sold it in 1994 while Kent lived there!
On 03/30/1999 Sweeney's filed on Kent for UNPAID RENT!
GeoParcel 8024-15-452-029 District/Parcel 181/00392-048-000
[ As Collected Sept 13, 2009 ]
Seller: WILLS, FRED A. & JANET R.
Buyer: THE SWEENEY REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST
04/26/1994 135,000 D/Deed 7010/188
-
Seller: SHELDAHL, ERIC A.
Buyer: WILLS, FRED
01/02/1990 130,500 D/Deed 6189/972
A Larger photo:
http://www.assess.co.polk.ia.us/cgi-bin/seephoto/photosize.cgi?gp=802415452029&size=Large
Notice that name SWEENEY above?
Check this out!
Iowa Courts Docket and Disposition web site
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
Iowa Courts
Online Search
< Start A Case Search Here! > click
Iowa Courts Online Search
Search Selection
Under Trial Court < click on Case Search >
Wills Kent B
02401 ESPR015146 INA J WILLS ESTATE
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT ******
05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT
05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRES VS KENT
05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRES VS KENT
05771 STAN201670 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 STAN210929 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
A list of case numbers will be presented.
Click on the SWEENEY case, 4th one down.
Under the "Filings" tab:
JUDGEMENT DEFAULT BRANDT GREGORY D 08/25/1999 09/01/1999 09/01/1999
Comments: $156.25 7.244% FROM 03/30/99
COMPUTER GENERATED NOTICE 05/11/1999 05/11/1999 05/11/1999
Comments: Notice of Proof of Claim
RETURN OF ORIGINAL NOTICE 04/21/1999 04/23/1999 04/23/1999
Comments: 4/10/99 KENT PERS
37.60
VERIFICATION OF ACCT HAS BEEN FILED 03/30/1999 03/30/1999
03/30/1999
SMALL CLAIMS ORIGINAL NOTICE SWEENEY RENTALS 03/30/1999 03/30/1999
03/30/1999
Comments: UNPAID RENT
Under the "Financial" Tab:
Summary Orig Paid Due
COSTS 98.60 31.00 67.60
FINE 0.00 0.00 0.00
SURCHARGE 0.00 0.00 0.00
RESTITUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00
OTHER 238.46 0.00 238.46
-----------
$337.06 $31.00 $306.06
SUPPORT/ALIMONY N/A 0.00 N/A
----------------------------------------
Kent's 2000 Felony, first of TWO in Iowa
WILLS, KENT BRADLEY 05771 FECR145250 (POLK)
01/24/2000 Offense Date THEFT 2ND DEGREE - 1978 (FELD) WITHDRAWN
01/24/2000 Offense Date THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
03/07/2000 DEFERRED JUDGMENT (At that time) Sentence: 365 Day(s)
03/07/2000 PROBATION INFORMAL; 8/07/01-TRNFRD TO FORMAL 365 Day(s)
03/07/2000 COMMUNITY SERVICE 50 Hour(s)
03/07/2000 REFERRED TO OTHER AGENCY 1ST TIME OFFENDER CLASS
08/07/2001 JAIL PROB HRG 11 Day(s)
08/07/2001 JAIL PROB HRG 11 Day(s) TIME SERVED
08/07/2001 PROBATION EXTENDED PROB HRG
04/16/2002 PROBATION EXTENDED TO 08/06/03
04/16/2002 IMPOSED 7 Day(s)
04/16/2002 OTHER/MISCELLANEOUS PROB HRG 6 Day(s)
04/16/2002 DETENTION PROB HRG 6 Day(s)
08/07/2003 PRIOR ORDERS CONTINUED PROB EXTENDED UNTIL 8-06-04
11/26/2003 REVOKED PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL
11/26/2003 PLACEMENT HRG PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL120 Day(s)
11/26/2003 SUSPEND PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; TIME SERVED 106 Day(s)
11/26/2003 COMMUNITY CORR PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL 14 Day(s)
( When Kent's second Felony revoked the rest of his Probation.)
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
Iowa Courts
Online Search
< Start A Case Search Here! > click
Iowa Courts Online Search
Search Selection
Under Trial Court < click on Case Search >
Wills Kent B
02401 ESPR015146 INA J WILLS ESTATE
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT ******
05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT
05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRES VS KENT
05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRES VS KENT
05771 STAN201670 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 STAN210929 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
A list of case numbers will be presented.
Click on case FECR145250, 2nd one down.
Under the "[Criminal Charges/Disposition]" tab:
Charges, Dispositions, Sentences
Title: STATE VS KENT B WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR145250 (POLK)
Citation Number:
Defendant: WILLS, KENT BRADLEY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 01 Charge
Charge:
714.2(2) Description: THEFT 2ND DEGREE - 1978 (FELD)
Offense Date: 01/24/2000 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0386367-01
Adjudication
Charge:
714.2(2) Description: THEFT 2ND DEGREE - 1978 (FELD)
Adj.:
DNU-WITHDRAWN Adj.Date: 03/07/2000
Adj.Judge:
WILSON, ROBERT D
Comments: AMENDED TI FILED
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(2) Description: THEFT 2ND DEGREE - 1978 (FELD)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: WITHDRAWN
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 02 Charge
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Offense Date: 01/24/2000 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0386367-02
Adjudication
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Adj.:
DEFERRED Adj.Date: 03/07/2000
Adj.Judge:
WILSON, ROBERT D
Comments:
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: DEFERRED JUDGMENT
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 365 Day(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 365 Day(s)
Comment:
INFORMAL;8/07/01-TRNFRD TO FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 50 Hour(s)
Comment:
TO BE DETERMINED BY PROBATION
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: REFERRED TO OTHER AGENCY
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
1ST TIME OFFENDER CLASS
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
08/07/2001 Sentence: JAIL
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: JACOBS, LOUISE M
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 11 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
08/07/2001 Sentence: TIME SERVED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: JACOBS, LOUISE M
Facility Type:
J Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 11 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
08/07/2001 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: JACOBS, LOUISE M
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROB HRG-4/16/02-PROBATION EXTENDED TO 08/06/03
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
04/16/2002 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: COPPOLA, CAROL L
Facility Type:
J Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 7 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
04/16/2002 Sentence: OTHER/MISCELLANEOUS
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: COPPOLA, CAROL L
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 6 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
04/16/2002 Sentence: DETENTION
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: COPPOLA, CAROL L
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 6 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
08/07/2003 Sentence: PRIOR ORDERS CONTINUED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: MCGHEE, ODELL
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROB EXTENDED UNTIL 8-06-04
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
11/26/2003 Sentence: REVOKED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: SMITH, JOE E
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
11/26/2003 Sentence: PLACEMENT
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: SMITH, JOE E
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 120 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
11/26/2003 Sentence: SUSPEND
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: SMITH, JOE E
Facility Type:
J Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 106 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; TIME SERVED
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
11/26/2003 Sentence: COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: SMITH, JOE E
Facility Type:
J Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 14 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL
---------------------------------------
Charges, Dispositions, Sentences
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
Citation Number:
Count 01
08/12/2003 Offense Date BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
12/17/2003 Adj.Date: GUILTY
01/16/2004 Sentence 10 Year(s) SUSPENDED PRISON
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION 2 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FT DSM FACILITY-MAX
BENEFITS
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE 150 Hour(s)
12/17/2003 Sentence: JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
Count 02
08/12/2003 Offense BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR VEHICLE
(AGMS)
12/17/2003 GUILTY
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON Duration: 2 Year(s) SUSPENDED PRISON
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION Duration: 2 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FT DSM FACILITY-MAX
BENEFITS
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE Duration: 150 Hour(s)
12/17/2003 Sentence: JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/06/09
Count 03
08/12/2003 USING JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE OFFENSE(FELC)709A.6
(2)
12/17/2003 GUILTY
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON Duration: 10 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON 10 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION 2 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FT DSM FACILITY-MAX
BENEFITS
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE 150 Hour(s)
12/17/2003 Sentence: JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
Charges, Dispositions, Sentences
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
Citation Number:
Count 01 Charge
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Offense Date: 08/12/2003 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0668408-01
Adjudication
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Adj.:
DNU-GUILTY Adj.Date: 12/17/2003
Adj.Judge:
HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Comments: GUILTY
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 150 Hour(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
12/17/2003 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 02 Charge
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Offense Date: 08/12/2003 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0668408-02
Adjudication
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Adj.:
DNU-GUILTY Adj.Date: 12/17/2003
Adj.Judge:
HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Comments: GUILTY
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 150 Hour(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
12/17/2003 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/06/09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 03 Charge
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Offense Date: 08/12/2003 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0668408-03
Adjudication
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Adj.:
DNU-GUILTY Adj.Date: 12/17/2003
Adj.Judge:
HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Comments: GUILTY
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 150 Hour(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
12/17/2003 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
-------------------------------------
Filings
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
ORDER OF DISCHARGE OVROM ELIZA 12/16/2008 12/16/2008 12/16/2008
Comments: FROM PROBATION
OTHER EVENT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 12/16/2008 12/16/2008
12/16/2008
Comments: FIELD DISCHARGE REPORT
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 12/16/2008 12/16/2008 12/16/2008
Comments: REVOCATION HEARING SET FOR 1/07/2009 IS CANCELLED
DEFENDANT HAS NOT PAID IN FULL FINANCIAL
OBLIGATIONS
ORDER FOR PROBATION REVOCATION HEARING MOISAN CYNTHIA M 12/05/2008
12/05/2008 12/05/2008
Comments: ON 1/7/09 AT 9:30AM RM204
PROBATION REVOCATION 12/05/2008 12/05/2008 12/05/2008
Comments: REPORT OF VIOLATIONS FILED BY JAN HORNOCKER
FORMAL PROBATION HUTCHISON ROBERT A 01/25/2006 01/26/2006
01/26/2006
Comments: EXTENDED TO 01/16/09 OR UNTIL CONDITIONS ARE MET
COURT ORDERED PAYMENT PLAN 01/13/2006 01/13/2006 01/13/2006
OTHER ORDER HUTCHISON ROBERT A 01/11/2006 01/13/2006 01/13/2006
Comments: DEFT'S PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09; DEFT TO
COMPLETE
CONDITIONS LISTED
OTHER EVENT 09/15/2005 09/15/2005 09/15/2005
Comments: THE SUPREME COURT RETURNED FILE, PSI, 4 TRANSCRIPTS,
AND 1 ENVELOPE OF EXHIBITS
OTHER EVENT APPELLATE DEFENDER'S OFFICE 06/09/2005 06/13/2005
06/13/2005
Comments: STATEMENT OF HOURS
15.9 HOURS = $795.00
ATTORNEY - GRETA TRUMAN
OTHER EVENT CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 06/02/2005 09/15/2005
09/15/2005
Comments: BILL OF COSTS
$27.50 TAXED AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND PAYABLE
TO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
#04-0202
OTHER ORDER SUPREME COURT OF IOWA 06/02/2005 09/15/2005 09/15/2005
Comments: RE DEFT'S APPEAL CLAIMING INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL:
JUDGEMENT AFFIRMED
#04-0202
PROCEDENDO CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 06/02/2005 09/15/2005 09/15/2005
Comments: AFFIRMED
PROCEED W/DILIGENCE AS IF THERE HAD BEEN NO
APPEAL
#04-0202
COMMUNITY SERVICE 05/25/2004 05/27/2004 05/27/2004
Comments: 135 HRS COMPLETED 5/24/04
INDIGENT DEFENSE CLAIM FORM TAYLOR KAREN 05/11/2004 05/13/2004
05/13/2004
Comments: $1150
ELECTRONIC FILING
OTHER EVENT 04/26/2004 04/28/2004 04/28/2004
Comments: SUPREME COURT REC'D 1 FILE, 1 PSI ENVELOPE,
1 EXHIBIT(1 ENVELOPE DATED 1/21/04)
REC'D 4/20/04
OTHER ORDER NICKERSON DON 04/23/2004 04/27/2004 04/27/2004
Comments: THE BALANCE OF ATTNY FEE AND CC SHALL BE
CONVERTED TO 135 HRS COMM SERVICE
TO BE COMPLETED FROM FT DSM FACILITY
OR TRANSFER TO INTERSTATE COMPACT
COMMUNITY SERVICE 04/22/2004 04/23/2004 04/23/2004
Comments: 150 HRS COMPLETED
APRIL 8, 2004
OTHER EVENT 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004
Comments: RECD CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR DEFT
OTHER EVENT 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004
Comments: FILE AND PSI SENT TO THE SUPREME COURT
ONE ENVELOPE OF EXHIBITS FILED 1/21/04
SENT TO THE SUPREME COURT
OTHER EVENT 04/19/2004 04/19/2004 04/19/2004
Comments: SUP CRT RECEIVED 2 TRANSCRIPTS OF PROCEEDINGS
FILED 4/1/04 (VOL I & II)
SUP CRT 04-202
OTHER EVENT 04/06/2004 05/18/2004 05/18/2004
Comments: 2 TRANSCRIPTS FILED 4/1/04 SENT TO THE
SUPREME COURT
DNU - COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT MAXEY REBECCA 04/01/2004 04/05/2004
04/05/2004
Comments: OF PROCEEDINGS ON 12/16/03
VOLUME II
DNU - COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT MAXEY REBECCA 04/01/2004 04/05/2004
04/05/2004
Comments: OF PROCEEDINGS ON 12/15/03
VOLUME I
OTHER EVENT 03/31/2004 03/31/2004 03/31/2004
Comments: EXHIBITS RETURNED
OTHER EVENT 03/31/2004 03/31/2004 03/31/2004
Comments: ENVELOPE OF EXHIBITS CHECKED OUT TO COURT
REPORTER R.M.
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 03/29/2004 03/31/2004 03/31/2004
Comments: MOTION IS GRANTED REGARDING REVIEW OF
PAYMENT OF COURT APPOINTED ATTY FEES AND
THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER IS ORDERED TO MAKE
PAYMENT AS REQUESTED.
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 03/29/2004 03/30/2004 03/31/2004
ENTERED IN ERROR
Comments: STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER SHALL MAKE PAYMENT AS
REQUESTED.
MOTION 03/18/2004 03/19/2004 03/19/2004
Comments: TO ENLARGE TIME FOR DOCKETING FILED BY
ASSISTANT APPELLATE DEFENDER
ORDER SETTING HEARING OVROM ELIZA 03/15/2004 03/16/2004 03/16/2004
Comments: ON MOTION TO REVIEW ACTION RE:PAYMENT OF
COURT APPOINTED ATTY.
3/29/04 8:15AM RM209A
MOTION 03/15/2004 03/16/2004 03/16/2004
Comments: FOR REVIEW OF ACTION REGARDING PAYMENT
OF COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY FEES
FILED BY ATDF
OTHER EVENT 03/11/2004 03/11/2004 03/11/2004
Comments: SUPREME COURT RECVD 2 TRANSCRIPTS OF SENTENCING
ON 1/16/04 AND STATUS CONF ON 12/12/03 FILED
3/1/04
04-202
OTHER EVENT 03/09/2004 03/09/2004 03/09/2004
Comments: 2 TRANSCRIPTS FILED 3/1/04 SENT TO THE
SUPREME COURT
INDIGENT DEFENSE CLAIM FORM TAYLOR KAREN 03/09/2004 03/18/2004
03/18/2004
Comments: $1350.00 ELECTRONIC FILING
DNU - COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT HILGENBERG VIVIAN ROSE 03/01/2004
03/03/2004 03/03/2004
Comments: OF STATUS CONFERENCE ON 12/12/2003
DNU - COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT HILGENBERG VIVIAN ROSE 03/01/2004
03/03/2004 03/03/2004
Comments: OF SENTENCING ON 01/16/2004
OTHER EVENT APPELLATE DEFENDER'S OFFICE 02/26/2004 02/27/2004
02/27/2004
Comments: COMBINED CERTIFICATE
OTHER EVENT 02/24/2004 02/24/2004 02/24/2004
Comments: DOCKET ENTRIES RECEIVED BY SUPREME COURT
2-10-04; SUPREME COURT NUMBER 04-202
ORDER APPOINTING OVROM ELIZA 02/18/2004 02/19/2004 02/19/2004
Comments: ORDER GRANTING K TAYLOR TO W/D
APPELLATE COUNSEL IS APPT
OTHER APPLICATION 02/18/2004 02/19/2004 02/19/2004
Comments: TO WITHDRAW
OTHER EVENT 02/10/2004 02/10/2004 02/10/2004
Comments: DOCKET ENTRIES AND CERTIFIED COPY OF NOTICE
OF APPEAL SENT TO THE SUPREME COURT
OTHER EVENT TAYLOR KAREN A 02/09/2004 02/10/2004 02/10/2004
Comments: COURT APPOINTED BILLING
47 HOURS = $2500
OTHER EVENT TAYLOR KAREN 02/09/2004 02/10/2004 02/10/2004
ENTERED IN ERROR
Comments: COURT
NOTICE OF APPEAL TAYLOR KAREN A 02/06/2004 02/09/2004 02/09/2004
Comments: FILED BY ATDF
OTHER EVENT 01/23/2004 01/27/2004 01/27/2004
Comments: ADDENDUM TO PSI REPORT
EXHIBIT MAXEY REBECCA 01/21/2004 01/21/2004 01/21/2004
Comments: STATE'S EXHIBITS
1-$13.21; 2-$24.25 (IN VAULT); 3-LIGHT;
4&5-WRITTEN STATEMENT; 6,7,8-DIAGRAM
1 ENVELOPE & VAULT
OTHER EVENT 01/20/2004 01/26/2004 01/26/2004
Comments: VORP
VICTIM DOES NOT WANT TO VORP
NO RESTITUTION ISSUES AT THIS TIME
VICTIM DENNIS AND JAMIE WIEBEN
COURT ORDERED PAYMENT PLAN 01/20/2004 01/20/2004 01/20/2004
COURT ORDERED PAYMENT PLAN 01/16/2004 01/16/2004 01/16/2004
COURT REPORTER CERTIFICATE HILGENBERG VIVIAN ROSE 01/16/2004
01/20/2004 01/20/2004
Comments: $15.00
PRE SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT PSI 01/16/2004 01/16/2004
01/16/2004
ORDER OF DISPOSITION OVROM ELIZA 01/16/2004 01/16/2004 01/16/2004
Comments: FOUND GUILTY BY JURY/PRISON-SUSPENDED; FORMAL
PROBATION; FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS;
COMMUNITY SERVED; RESTITUTION-SUPP ORDER TO
FOLLOW; VORP; APPEAL BOND $13000 C/S
ORDER OF DISPOSITION OVROM ELIZA 01/16/2004 01/16/2004
01/16/2004
ENTERED IN ERROR
Comments: PLED GUILTY/PRISON-SUSPENDED; FORMAL
PROBATION; FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS;
COMMUNITY SERVED; RESTITUTION-SUPP ORDER TO
FOLLOW; VORP; APPEAL BOND $13000 C/S
MITTIMUS TO STATE INSTITUTION WILLS KENT BRADLEY 01/16/2004
01/16/2004 01/16/2004
Comments: **FORT DES MOINES**
RETURN OF SERVICE - OTHER POLK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 12/23/2003
12/26/2003 12/26/2003
Comments: TRANSPORT COSTS $96.24
OTHER EVENT 12/22/2003 12/23/2003 12/23/2003
Comments: DEFT'S COPY OF ORDER TO EXCEED STATE FEE
LIMITATION RETURNED UNDELIVERABLE
COURT REPORTER CERTIFICATE MAXEY REBECCA 12/17/2003 12/18/2003
12/18/2003
CRIMINAL VERDICT HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/17/2003 12/18/2003 12/18/2003
Comments: OF GUILTY TO BURGLARY 2ND, 3RD, AND USING A
JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE OFFENSE; DCS
WILL SUBMIT A PSI BY 1 WK PRIOR TO SENTENCING
DATE; PRESENTENCE CONF & SENTENCING 1-16-04
@ 8:30 AM IN RM 209A; BOND CONT
AMENDED TRIAL INFORMATION HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/17/2003 12/18/2003
12/18/2003
Comments: FILED BY JOHN JUDISCH
JURY SELECTION HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/17/2003 12/18/2003 12/18/2003
INSTRUCTIONS 12/17/2003 12/18/2003 12/18/2003
Comments: TO THE JURY AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE
OTHER ORDER HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/16/2003 12/17/2003 12/17/2003
Comments: JUV SEAN BILYEU SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE
CUSTODY OF POLK CO SHERIFF FOR THE DURATION
OF HIS REQUIRED TESTIMONY/PRESENCE IN THIS
MATTER. SEAN BILYEU SHALL REMAIN IN THE
CUSTODY OF POLK CO SHERIFF OR ANY OTHER
LOCATION (MEYER HALL) DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY
THE SHERIFF UNTIL THE POLK CO SHERIFF CAN
EXECUTE THE TIMELY TRANSPORT OF SEAN BILYEU
FROM THE CUSTODY OF THE SHERIFF TO THE ELDORA
TRAINING CENTER.
OTHER ORDER HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/16/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003
Comments: DEFT TO BE RETURNED FROM ELDORA-COTTAGE 5
BY JIM TROTTER, INVESTIGATOR/CTY ATTY'S
OFFICE; DEFT CAN BE PRESENT AT HIS TESTIMONY
ON 12-16-03
OTHER ORDER HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/15/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003
Comments: ATDF IS PERMITTED TO EXCEED GUIDELINE FOR
CT APPT ATTY IN THIS MATTER AND THAT THIS
ORDER SHALL INCLUED ALL FEES INCURRED AS OF
THE DATE OF THIS ORDER.
APPLICATION TO EXCEED FEES 12/15/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003
COURT REPORTER CERTIFICATE HILGENBERG VIVIAN ROSE 12/12/2003
12/17/2003 12/17/2003
MOTION IN LIMINE TAYLOR KAREN 12/12/2003 12/15/2003 12/15/2003
ORDER SETTING HEARING OVROM ELIZA 12/05/2003 12/08/2003 12/08/2003
Comments: STATUS CONF: 12/12/03 @ 10:00 AM RM 204
RETURN OF SERVICE ON SUBPEONA 11/20/2003 12/09/2003 12/09/2003
Comments: 4=$0
RETURN OF SERVICE ON SUBPEONA 11/18/2003 11/25/2003 11/25/2003
Comments: 3=$0
ORDER SETTING HEARING OVROM ELIZA 11/14/2003 11/14/2003 11/14/2003
Comments: STATUS CONFERENCE
11/13/03 9AM RM 204
ALL PARTIES MUST BE PRESENT
ORDER SETTING TRIAL OVROM ELIZA 11/13/2003 11/14/2003 11/14/2003
Comments: 12/15/03 @ 9:00 AM RM 204
WAIVER OF SPEEDY TRIAL TAYLOR KAREN 11/13/2003 11/14/2003
11/14/2003
Comments: LIMITED
RETURN OF SERVICE ON SUBPEONA 11/10/2003 11/12/2003 11/12/2003
Comments: 1 = $0
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF DAVID DUVALL
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF BETH ANN SKOGEN
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF NEIL LEMKE
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF DENNIS WIEBEN
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF NATALIE BALUKOFF
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF SEAN BILYEU
RETURN OF SERVICE ON SUBPEONA 10/31/2003 11/04/2003 11/04/2003
Comments: 6=$0
AMENDED TRIAL INFORMATION OVROM ELIZA 10/31/2003 11/03/2003
11/03/2003
Comments: FILED BY JOHN JUDISCH
NOTICE WARD JAMES P 10/31/2003 11/03/2003 11/03/2003
Comments: OF ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
DNU - SUBPOENA PER DUCES TECUM 10/31/2003 11/03/2003 11/03/2003
Comments: 1 - $13.70
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: FOR DEPOSITIONS AND SERVICE
AT STATE EXPENSE
OTHER APPLICATION 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: FOR DEPOSITIONS AND SERVICE
AT STATE EXPENSE
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITION
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 10/07/2003 10/08/2003 10/08/2003
Comments: ORDER ENTERED 9/18/03 SETTING TRIAL FOR
11/19/03 WAS IS ERROR. TRIAL IS RESET FOR
11/12/03 @9:00 AM RM 204
OTHER EVENT 09/24/2003 09/26/2003 09/26/2003
Comments: DEFT'S COPY OF APP TO W/D
RETURNED UNDELIVERABLE
PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE OVROM ELIZA 09/18/2003 09/19/2003 09/19/2003
Comments: WAS HELD; TRIAL ON 11-19-03
ATDF TAYLOR
OTHER EVENT AMUNDSON LAURA K 08/26/2003 09/02/2003 09/02/2003
Comments: STATEMENT OF HOURS
.4-$18.00
APPEARANCE TAYLOR KAREN 08/25/2003 08/26/2003 08/26/2003
Comments: FILED BY KAREN TAYLOR
WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL OVROM ELIZA 08/21/2003 08/22/2003 08/22/2003
Comments: OF ADULT PUBLIC DEF IS GRANTED
KAREN TAYLOR IS APPOINTED
ORDER OF ARRAIGNMENT MCGHEE ODELL 08/21/2003 08/21/2003 08/21/2003
Comments: Pretrial Conference 09/18/2003 01:30 PM DCC1
Trial 10/22/2003 09:00 AM DCC9
Bond is continued
TRIAL INFORMATION OVROM ELIZA 08/20/2003 08/20/2003 08/20/2003
Comments: FILED BY JAMES WARD
ORDER FOR ARRAIGNMENT MCGHEE ODELL 08/14/2003 08/14/2003
08/14/2003
Comments: IN CUSTODY ON 8/21/03 AT 10:30AM JAILCOURT
OUT OF CUSTODY AT 8AM ROOM 204
PRELIM HAS NOT BEEN WAIVED SET FOR 8/22/03
DNU - HEARING FOR BOND REDUCTION MCGHEE ODELL 08/14/2003 08/14/2003
08/14/2003
Comments: BOND $13000 C/S
APP FOR COUNSEL/FINANCIAL STATMENT MCGHEE ODELL 08/13/2003
08/13/2003 08/13/2003
Comments: APPROVED
PD IS APPOINTED
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 08/13/2003 08/13/2003 08/13/2003
Comments: BURGLARY 2ND
ANPD 03-75354
HEARING FOR INITIAL APPEARANCE MCGHEE ODELL 08/13/2003 08/13/2003
08/13/2003
Comments: Preliminary Hearing 08/22/2003 08:00 AM DA03
Bond Review 08/14/2003 08:30 AM DA04
Bond set for 713.5 $13000 C/S
Total Bond $13000 C/S
Indexed PUBLIC DEFENDER-POLK COUNTYPIN-
PK1000375
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
Citation Number:
Orig Paid Due Summary
3501.70 3501.70 0.00 COSTS
0.00 0.00 0.00 FINE
125.00 125.00 0.00 SURCHARGE
0.00 0.00 0.00 RESTITUTION
27.50 27.50 0.00 OTHER
-------------------------------------
$3654.20 $3654.20 $0.00
WILLS, KENT B [ Collected Sept 13, 2009]
Age: 40
Rogers, AR
Ankeny, IA
Marshalltown, IA
Bartlett, IL
Villa Park, IL
And from another source: Hanover Park, IL
WILLS, FREDERICK ALFRED (Kent's Dad 65 )
WILLS, MICHAEL A (Kent's son ??)
WILLS, JANET RAE (Kent's Mom 62 )
HARTWIG,TIFFANY JEANNE (Wills) (Kent's sister )
From another source: Kelly M Wills Kent's wife ?? )
( Samantha T Wills, Kathleen M Wills, James Wills ? )
-----------------------------------
Consider the following:
If "our" Kent is NOT Kent Bradley Wills then
his ""Fake ID"" has worked well, so what's
the problem?
Consider Kent's OWN comments about:
A. regarding his sister (by name)
B. property in CORPORATION name (Wills Family Trust)
C. footage of "Wills" plaque avoiding first name
D. apt building at 202 NW College Ave Ankeny IA
E. past residence in various cities in IA
F. connection to Arkansas
G. that he set up/was assigned this ""Fake ID""
Does an actual Garage Burglary Felon have a
RIGHT to con people into thinking he ISN'T one?
Does a TWO time thieving Felon actually have
a right to conceal his record and a right
against having his record exposed?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.bob-larson/msg/b9653f6758b592b8
Newsgroups: alt.fan.bob-larson, alt.law-enforcement, alt.usenet.kooks
From: Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com>
Local: Wed, Oct 15 2008 5:59 pm
> and running to Arkansas ain't gonna help you this time, Kent --
KBW > I've never run to Arkansas.
KBW > We have a house near Fort Smith, AR.
KBW > I'm confident your stalking has found
KBW > just where it is. You were able to
KBW > find my phone number from when I
KBW > lived in Chicago (you posted part
KBW > of it) back in 1988, so finding a
KBW > current address should have been
KBW > real easy for you.
2006 Assets Learning Conference Session III.8
Understanding the New Bankruptcy and Credit Laws:
Implications for the Field
Facilitated for the Assets Alliance by:
Janet Wills
Wills Resources
8250 Wills Court
Rogers, AR 72756
Phone & Fax Number: (479) 925-4001
E-mail: janetw...@yahoo.com
Ramona McKinney
Asset Builders Program Director
Southern Good Faith Fund
2304 West 29th Avenue
Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71603
Phone Number: (870) 535-6233, ext. 15
E-mail: rmck...@southerngff.org
History of Bankruptcy
Roots of word traced to medieval Italy – “banco rotto” which means
broken bench
Early U. S. bankruptcy law was modification of British law
1800’s – First federal bankruptcy law signed by President John Adams
in 1800 2 more laws passed and repealed until the Bankruptcy Act of
1898
1900’s and Beyond
A bankruptcy environment that had as its focus helping debtors seek a
new start remained in place for most of 20th century.
By beginning of 21st century creditors successfully argued that this
current law and environment were too easy on debtors
BAPCPA
The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005
was passed and went into effect October 19, 2005
Interruption in our presentation
There is a blank page in the back of your packet. As we are talking
today about bankruptcy and credit, please use it to jot down some of
your thoughts on how this new bankruptcy environment is going to
impact you and the people you serve.
Specifically write yourself a note or two about at least one
bankruptcy proceeding you know about personally. Then in 20 words or
less state what you think the contributing cause was for that person’s
financial problems.
We will want to hear your thoughts later.
Types of Bankruptcy
Chapter 7
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapter 7
For personal bankruptcy
Often referred to is liquidation bankruptcy
Debtors turn over nonessential assets to bankruptcy trustee, who then
sells it off and distributes proceeds to creditors eliminating debt
completely
This type of bankruptcy was most affected by the BAOCPA
Chapter 11
For corporations that want to reorganize their finances and remain in
business
Features a debt repayment plan
Chapter 12
For family farmers and fishermen
Features payment plan and debt restructuring
Chapter 13
For individuals
Features debt repayment plan
More individuals who previously would have filed under Chapter 7 will
be forced into Chapter 13
Changes with the BAPCPA
Means test
Required Credit Counseling
Required Debtor Education
Means Test
To qualify for Chapter 7 “liquidation bankruptcy” individual must pass
means test
Income must be below state’s median income
Or if it is above, debtor is subject to means test
Monthly income less allowed expenses
If after all these subtractions the total monthly disposable income is
less than $100 the debtor has passed the Means Test
Means Test cont.
If disposable income is more than $166.67 Means test is flunked and
debtor is not eligible for Chapter 7, must go to Chapter 13
If disposable income is between $100 and $166.67 then calculations are
figured to see if what is left over is enough to pay off more than 25%
of unsecured debt over 5 years.
In other words – the means test is not easy.
Required Credit Counseling
Debtors filing for Chapter 7 must complete required credit counseling
& debtors must pay for it.* Credit Counseling must be provided by a
qualifying 501(c)3 organization that has been approved by Bankruptcy
Trustees.
*fee can be waived
Debtor Education
2 hours required
Required topics
Budget Development
Setting short-term & long-term financial goals as well as developing
skills to assist in achieving these goals
Calculating gross monthly income & net monthly income
Identifying & classifying monthly expenses as fixed, variable, or
periodic
Debtor Education
Required topics cont
Money Management
Keeping adequate financial records
Developing decision-making skills required to distinguish between
wants and needs and to comparison shop for goods & services
Maintaining appropriate levels of insurance coverage, taking into
account the types and costs of insurance
Saving for emergences, for periodic payments, and for financial goals
Debtor education
required topics cont.
Wise Use of Credit
Types sources, and costs of credit & loans
Identifying debt warning signs
Appropriate use of credit & alternatives to credit use
Checking a credit rating
Debtor Education
required topics cont.
Consumer information
Public and non-profit resources for consumer assistance
Applicable consumer protection laws and regulations, such as those
governing correction of a credit record and protection against
consumer fraud
Approved credit counseling and debtor education can be provided
In person
Internet
Telephone
(can be approved for a combination of internet/telephone. That is the
approval we have)
www.usdoj.gov/ust/
The U. S. Trustees home page
A Huge wealth of information
www.usdoj.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/ccde/cc_approved.htm#AL
Web site (part of the trustee web site) for list of approved credit
counselors and debtor education providers
Click on state
Click on your judicial district
Bankruptcy and the Future
At first it’s a relief – you file for bankruptcy, the creditors stop
calling and harassing you, and the juggling act ends.
Many people who file bankruptcy ask, “Now what can I expect?”
Let’s begin looking at “what’s next” by completing the quiz.
Bankruptcy will expire from your credit report after 10 years.
Some credit reporting agencies may remove Chapter 13 after 7 years.
Bankruptcy is for life – if you apply for insurance, credit, or a job
you can be asked if you have ever filed for bankruptcy. There is no
time limit even if it is very old.
Bankruptcy will stay with me forever: True.
2. The accounts included in my bankruptcy will be removed from my
credit report upon discharge: False.
Accounts included in bankruptcy expire independently from bankruptcy.
These accounts will be marked “Included in BK” on the credit report.
They will remain up to 7 years after filing.
After discharge the balance must be reported as “0.”
I will never get credit again: False.
You can expect receive many offers of credit.
Many of these may be from unscrupulous creditors with activation fees
and/or membership fees.
There are “debtor-friendly” agencies that specialize in credit repair
loans.
Do not be too eager to get credit again – know the terms and
conditions of the credit.
I will not be able to by a home for 10 years: False.
There are some lenders who prefer to deal with consumers with good
credit and will not do business for the 10 years it remains.
It is not a quick fix, it may take those in Chapter 13 three to five
years to complete their payment plan.
With strides to rebuild credit and no new negative “marks,” you may be
able to receive a conventional mortgage within one to two years.
Even after bankruptcy I may still have some of my existing debt:
True.
Even with Chapter 7 not all debt will be discharged, it depends on the
type of debts that are owed.
Certain debts that cannot be discharged include: most taxes, child
support, most student loans, court fines and criminal restitution, and
personal injury.
Debts incurred after filing for bankruptcy will not be included.
I will lose all my property if I file for bankruptcy: False.
With Chapter 13, which is like a payment plan, you may be allowed to
keep property.
Chapter 7 involves the sale of all assets that are not exempt.
Exemptions differ from state to state but typically allow: equity in
home, insurance, retirement plans, personal property, car, public
benefits, and/or tools used on job.
Filing for bankruptcy will lower my credit score: True.
The drop in the credit score will depend on the type of debt and
payment history prior to filing.
Credit score is calculated using a complicated algorithm that takes
into account hundreds of factors and values.
It is very difficult to predict how the credit score will be affected
but bankruptcy is one of the most negative factors included in the
report.
I cannot file for bankruptcy for 8 years after discharge: True.
This is only true for Chapter 7.
Chapter 13 waiting period is shorter and can be as little as two
years.
After bankruptcy all my debts will be free and clear and I will have
peace of mind: False.
As stated in #5 all debts will not be discharged.
Bankruptcy is listed in the top five life-altering negative events
that one can go through.
Bankruptcy is life-altering and leaves deep wounds both to the psyche
and the credit report.
After bankruptcy I will need to take steps to protect myself from
another bankruptcy: True.
Even if the bankruptcy was through no fault of your own it will be a
good time to examine what led to bankruptcy to begin to prepare for
unforeseen events.
Take a critical look at spending and saving habits.
Implement strategies to control spending, develop a budget, and start
a savings plan.
Let’s Talk About It
Implications to the IDA field
The “typical” person seeking bankruptcy
Contributing causes
Kent Wills
wrote:
>X > And the idiot once again posts something
>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>
>G > So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
>G > know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>
>KBW > Fair use allows you to copy portions for
>KBW > discussion. It does not allow for the
>KBW > copying of the entire work.
>
>KBW > I've explained this to you in the past.
>
>Got a LINK to where you ""explained"" this in the past?
Yes. As soon as you make available the picture of David dressed as
a Nazi and me on a pony, or admit you've lied about the existence of
both all along, I'll post numerous links.
FYI: Double quotation marks (quadruple if you use British
grammar) still means nothing. I even asked an English as a Second
Language teacher, just as you suggested. Double quotation marks mean
nothing at all.
>
>KBW > I even cited where in copyright law you
>KBW > will find this.
>
>All the better for you to LINK to same!
As soon as you make available the picture of David dressed as a
Nazi and me on a pony, or admit you've lied about the existence of
both all along, I'll post numerous links.
As you are well aware, this has been the requirement for a long
time. Once again you try to present that you don't know this.
If your NEED to continue to prove you're admitted use and abuse
of illegal drugs makes honesty IMPOSSIBLE for you, except by accident
or force, please do so. Your dishonest presentation that you don't
know the requirement has done me no harm to date. There's no reason
to expect it will in the future.
>
>KBW > Yes, you think you're exempt from all
>KBW > criminal and civil law. Your record, in
>KBW > addition to your current actions, proves this.
>
>See further below regarding your record.
You've already admitted that the information you post isn't about
me. You claimed it was about the other Kent Wills, though you've yet
to state which of the many people in the world with the name Kent
Wills it's supposed to be.
Whereas you've made it clear the information isn't about me
(unless you lied when you claimed it isn't), I have to wonder just why
you are still compelled to present it as if it is.
>
>Kent, Please tell me what you THINK you know about
>the FAIR USE exception to copyright law.
>
>Please describe what the background and
>INTENTION of the FAIR USE exception is.
It allows one to quote portions for discussion, critical review
and citing.
You already know this, since I went into detail in the past.
What is the SPECIFIC reason you're acting like you don't already
know it?
>
>Is this going to be another game where you
>make strong claims and then when proven
>wrong you blame the statements onto OTHERS?
You see copyright law as a game. OK.
>
>Like when you claimed Kim is a male?
I know a Kim who is certain he's male. I've not actually done a
DNA test on him, so it's possible he's really a she.
Are you claiming he's not? If so, please offer the evidence you
have that lead to such a conclusion.
To save you some time, I know a man named Ashley as well. Again,
I've not had a DNA test done, but his full beard leads me to accept
he's male.
>
>Please make it clear what parts you personally
>BELIEVE and what parts you think you
>can weasel out of and blame onto other
>people you are parroting.
Could you rewrite that in coherent English?
>
>I am still fairly amused that some anonymous
>schmuck thought he had PROVED Glen
>had been convicted using only proof that
>Glen had been INDICTED.
What does Glen have to do with copyright law? Are you so scared
of the truth that you MUST divert attention away from it? Or are you
once again offering undeniable PROOF that you're obsessed with a man
you've never met on-line or in real life?
>
>You DO know that indictment is NOT conviction, right?
Have I ever claimed it is?
>
>Do you think Moe does, and her idiot anonymous ""helper""?
>
As I asked in another thread, has she ever claimed, directly or
through implication, that she does?
I note you RAN from my question. You do that a lot when you're
proved to be the liar you are.
>Can you find any more on 43481-061 or Glen Frohman?
>
Yes, if motivated to do so.
>Was that YOU who posted the anonymous idiocy, Kent?
>
No.
>You seem to exhibit some subtle sort of ownership
>of the hollow argument on Copyright v FAIR USE.
>
Your use and abuse of illegal drugs may cause you to see claims
of ownership where none exist, but that's your issue to address.
[snip of Greg's admitting I'm correct]
It's accepted that when I'm correct and you can no longer lie
your way out of it, you post that which you KNOW isn't about me.
You've already admitted, freely, that the information you post
isn't about me but some other person who is named Kent Wills. Are you
so stoned that you think anyone is buying it now?
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, or proving he's so
stupid he thinks I'm Asian.
MID:<c6bac3f6-7a0e-4bf8-8ddd-d77bccfc6...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/395db830731df54a
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
triumphantly.
--a true story
Kent Wills
wrote:
Are you so drunk you think TV and print are the same thing? You
must be.
>
>http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=betamaxcase
>
>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technology/articles/groksterprimer_033805.htm
>
>
>Now what IDIOTIC comeback can we expect from our resident IDIOT POLACK????
>
None. Since I consistently PROVE I'm your intellectual superior,
nothing I post could be seen as idiotic.
Oh wait, you're intense bigotry always overrides any common sense
you may have. My bad.
"Maybe he's like me to attach some kiddie porn to aid his fantasies"
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-Team, expressing
his fondness for child porn in
Message-ID:
<RECUi.494$Q%3.238@trnddc04>
krp
Hey IMBECILLE try READING sometime.YOU FUKKKKKING MORON!
>>http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=betamaxcase
>>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technology/articles/groksterprimer_033805.htm
>>Now what IDIOTIC comeback can we expect from our resident IDIOT POLACK????
> None. Since I consistently PROVE I'm your intellectual superior,
> nothing I post could be seen as idiotic.
I see you SNIPPED some of the links I provided. In your POLACK
reasoning, you seem to believe that this PROVES some point. Such as your
POLACK claim that it has NO relevance to printed materials. In the finding
of the Supremes you might see it applies to ALL media. Something a STUPID
POLACK can't reason. The FAIR USE DOCTRINE applies to *.*! As do its
exceptions, such as reproducing a work and claiming it as your own, or in
trying to commercially exploit the work, such as selling copies. Other than
that, with proper attribution one can quote part or ALL of an article to
educate or to make a point. The STUPID argument you are TRYING to make,
Polack, is one that IDIOTS on Usenet have tried to make for years and in the
end they all get humiliated. READ up on the issue.
Kent Wills
CONsulting, "Kenneth Robert 'legally insane alcoholic'[1] Pangborn"
<kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>SUPREME COURT OVERSEER ATTORNEY KUNT WILLS
You need to get into rehab, Pangborn. Your alcoholism, the same
alcoholism you claimed caused you to be found legally insane, is once
again compelling you to claim something about me that you KNOW is not
true.
I read often. Unlike you, I'm not drunk, so I am able to focus on
letters and words.
>
>>>http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=betamaxcase
People have the right to record programs at home for private use.
Is that what you believe Greg did when he posted an entire
article?
What principle of Fair Use do you believe he was operating under
when he did that? He is claiming that "fair use" covers copy and
pasting an entire, complete piece of another's work.
Surely you, with your vast experience with law in your practice
of trail CONsulting and advising suckers, sorry, clients on legal
matters, would easily recognize the Fair Use principle Greg likely
thinks exempts him from copyright law. What is it? And how would it
apply to posting an entire piece of work to a Usenet newsgroup?
Proving that people can video tape TV shows for private use at
home doesn't cover what Greg did.
>
>>>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417
From the site:
"The record and the District Court's findings show (1) that there is a
significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders
who license their works for broadcast on free television would not
object to having their broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i.
e., recorded at a time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so
that it can be watched at a later time); and (2) that there is no
likelihood that time-shifting would cause nonminimal harm to the
potential market for, or the value of, respondents' copyrighted works.
The VTR's are therefore capable of substantial noninfringing uses."
If Greg has video taped the article for his own private home use,
you might be able to make the drunken argument you present. As it
stands, you've once again PROVED you know NOTHING about matters of
law.
This is not meant to imply I'm an expert, although your
alcoholism will force you to claim I am. I'm simply willing and able
to research applicable law whereas you whine and cry and have MASSIVE
on-line tantrums.
>
>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technology/articles/groksterprimer_033805.htm
>
How does Grokster not being held responsible for what its users
do apply to what Greg did?
You might want to sleep off your latest bender before you answer.
You ALWAYS get made to look the fool you are when you post while
drunk. The post to which I'm replying stands as proof of that.
Maybe you should have read what was to be found.
From the Washington Post article:
"If the Supreme Court upholds the previous rulings..."
*IF* the Supreme Court. Note the word if.
Not that it matters. The ruling would only effect if Google and
Greg's ISP could be held responsible for his willful violation of
copyright law.
FYI: The ruling was they can't. Only Greg can be held
responsible for his willful violation of copyright law.
Isn't it time for you to whine about how it's my civic duty to
turn him in? It's one of your lesser used tells that you've lost, but
it would fit this time. You can try to distract from the truth that
Greg willfully violated copyright law by whining about my civic duty.
>>>Now what IDIOTIC comeback can we expect from our resident IDIOT POLACK????
>
>> None. Since I consistently PROVE I'm your intellectual superior,
>> nothing I post could be seen as idiotic.
>
> I see you SNIPPED some of the links I provided.
If the alcoholism you claimed caused you to be found legally
insane is going to compel you to lie, and it is, be sure to have it
compel you to lie about that which can't be proved.
Anyone with an interest may check your post by visiting:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/5fff5f65acbe374b
What links did I snip? Be specific.
If you'd rather admit your alcoholism has once again forced you to
lie, feel free to disregard my question.
>In your POLACK
That you're a bigot is very old news. A very small sample of the
established PROOF that you HATE any and all minorities, said proof
consisting of your own writings, can be found at
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>reasoning, you seem to believe that this PROVES some point. Such as your
>POLACK claim that it has NO relevance to printed materials.
I made no such claim. If you weren't so drunk, you would
understand what I wrote. However, I will make the claim now.
One being allowed to video tape TV shows for private home use has
no relevance to printed materials.
An Internet service not being held responsible for its user's
actions has no relevance to printed materials.
Feel free to prove me wrong, unless, of course, I'm correct.
>In the finding
>of the Supremes you might see it applies to ALL media. Something a STUPID
>POLACK can't reason.
You've proved, again, your so drunk when you're on-line, you
can't understand simple English.
>The FAIR USE DOCTRINE applies to *.*! As do its
>exceptions, such as reproducing a work and claiming it as your own, or in
>trying to commercially exploit the work, such as selling copies.
I don't recommend you do either. However, the choice is
ultimately yours to make.
>Other than
>that, with proper attribution one can quote part or ALL of an article to
>educate or to make a point.
That's not what copyright law states.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
That's current copyright law, not case law from the 70's and
80's. Current law. It shows how Greg violated copyright law. But
then, he believes he is exempt from any and all laws of any sort, as
his criminal and civil history, in addition to current activities,
proves.
RUN from this Pangborn. Run as fast as your little scooter will
take you (I know, you won't really be running, but I hope you get my
meaning). You really have no other choice. I've once again PROVED
that you're INCOMPETENT in matters of law. You know less about the
topic of law than, well, anyone, except perhaps Richard the St00pid.
Given how often you proudly display your ignorance of such simple
concepts as copyright law, it's no wonder your CONsulting business is
in the tank. You've gone out of your way to show why no one should
ever hire you for anything related to legal matters.
I used to think it was David's TRUTH site
(http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com) that was the cause. While I'm sure
it had and has its effect, your proving, almost daily, that you're
extremely incompetent probably did far more damage.
>The STUPID argument you are TRYING to make,
>Polack, is one that IDIOTS on Usenet have tried to make for years and in the
>end they all get humiliated. READ up on the issue.
>
Are you aware of what is and is not allowed under current
copyright law?
If you're too drunk to understand, feel free to RUN from the
question.
"CPS cases are legal matters. Offering advice IS practicing law
without a license."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn admitting he practices law without a
license in misc.legal
[1] According to his own claims.
krp
>>SUPREME COURT OVERSEER ATTORNEY KUNT WILLS
> You need to get into rehab, Pangborn. Your alcoholism, the same
> alcoholism you claimed caused you to be found legally insane, is once
> again compelling you to claim something about me that you KNOW is not
> true.
You tend to think of yourself as a GREAT LEGAL EXPERT, Wills. You get more
than a little overbearing on what you *THINK* you know. (But really DON';T!)
Your reading is always with almost NO comprehensionand I make allowances
that English is NOT your primary language. You also have a nasty habit of
SELECTIVE reading and the ability to grasp anything wider than your own
nose. Which I grant you is an extreme venue, BUT hardly the point.
>>>>http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=betamaxcase
> People have the right to record programs at home for private use.
> Is that what you believe Greg did when he posted an entire
> article?
Kunt theBetamax case was a case ENTIRELY based on the 'FAIR USE
DOCTRINE." In feel for your Polack LACK of ability to grasp the significance
of that and apply it as broadly as the Supreme Court said it applies. YOU
"overruled" them becaus e in your tiny little POLACK mind the case was about
video recording and NOTHING ELSE. Again you obviously did NOT read the
decision.
> What principle of Fair Use do you believe he was operating under
> when he did that? He is claiming that "fair use" covers copy and
> pasting an entire, complete piece of another's work.
Kunt it is fair use to quote an article either in part or whole if your
purpose is to educate and not do the two forbidden things. a. Claim it as
your own. or b. Make copies to sell.
> Surely you, with your vast experience with law in your practice
> of trail CONsulting and advising suckers, sorry, clients on legal
> matters, would easily recognize the Fair Use principle Greg likely
> thinks exempts him from copyright law. What is it? And how would it
> apply to posting an entire piece of work to a Usenet newsgroup?
> Proving that people can video tape TV shows for private use at
> home doesn't cover what Greg did.
As long as proper attribution was given and it wasn't being done for
profit, the Fair Use Doctrine prvides for it. Somebody the other day pointed
out the copyright notices in newpapers etc. They are very much like the FBI
warnings we see on DVD's. EVERYONE knows (except YOU, Kunt) that those
"warnings" are a joke. So much so that even Hollywood has made fun of them.
There was a sketch in the ultimate spoof movie, "Amazon Women on the Moon"
called "Video pirates." It had a bunch of men dressed as pirates on a ship.
The guy took out a video tape and read the FBI WARNING, and he looked at his
mates and said; "We're SOOOOOOOOO SKKKKARED!"
Kunt there is no problem with long quotes, again so long as you stay
inside the rules. You can't say it's your work and you can't sell it.
>>>>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417
> From the site:
> "The record and the District Court's findings show (1) that there is a
> significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders
> who license their works for broadcast on free television would not
> object to having their broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i.
> e., recorded at a time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so
> that it can be watched at a later time); and (2) that there is no
> likelihood that time-shifting would cause nonminimal harm to the
> potential market for, or the value of, respondents' copyrighted works.
> The VTR's are therefore capable of substantial noninfringing uses."
>
> If Greg has video taped the article for his own private home use,
> you might be able to make the drunken argument you present. As it
> stands, you've once again PROVED you know NOTHING about matters of
> law.
Don't look new, Kunt but you just missed the POINT AGAIN. Every day you
PROVE that you ARE a "stupid Polack!"
> This is not meant to imply I'm an expert, although your
> alcoholism will force you to claim I am. I'm simply willing and able
> to research applicable law whereas you whine and cry and have MASSIVE
> on-line tantrums.
Your reading comprehension of conversational Eglish is marginal at best,
Kunt. Your understanding of LEGAL language is near ZERO, even though you
THINK you are a legal whiz. I'd have thought the dismal failure of your
appealate brief in your own case would ahve taught you that understanding
legal issues is NOT your strong suit.
The Chief Instigator
> news:01fbf5prsbapqoddr...@4ax.com...
>>>>
>>>>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy
>>>>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's
>>>>>> > > Troy
>>>>>> > > residence on June 20.
>>>>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>>>>>
>>>>>X > And the idiot once again posts something
>>>>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>>>>>
>>>>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
>>>>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>>>>
>>>> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously.
>>>> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not
>>>> allow for the copying of the entire work.
>>>
>>>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous
>>>"Betamax"
>>>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
>>
>> Cite?
>
>
> You can't be THAT stupid. Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
You ARE that stupid and more, Pangbitch.
--
Patrick L. "The Chief Instigator" Humphrey (pat...@io.com) Houston, Texas
www.io.com/~patrick/aeros.php (TCI's 2008-09 Houston Aeros) AA#2273
LAST GAME: Houston 5, San Antonio 2 (November 7)
NEXT GAME: Friday, November 13 at Lake Erie, 6:35
Greegor
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
1. GLEN FROHMAN 43481-061 49-White-M 02-23-2004 RELEASED
Even THIS does not prove WHAT Glen was convicted of.
It does NOT state sentence, only an exit date.
You DO know the difference between
INDICTMENT and CONVICTION, don't you, Kent?
Were you the anonymous idiot who confused them?
Do you have any explanation for Maureen's LINK
which was apparently broken WHEN IT WAS POSTED?
Why would Moe post a very broken link and
claim that it proved Glen was convicted?
Did you think it ever actually worked with an
http prefix buried in the middle of the link
and the word servlet chopped off?
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>> =A0 =A0 Your reading comprehension of conversational Eglish is marginal a=
>t best,
>> Kunt. Your understanding of LEGAL language is near ZERO, even though you
>> THINK you are a legal whiz. I'd have thought the dismal failure of your
>> appealate brief in your own case would ahve taught you that understanding
>> legal issues is NOT your strong suit.
>
>http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=3DNameSearch&needi=
>ngMoreList=3Dfalse&FirstName=3DGlen&Middle=3D&LastName=3DFrohman&Race=3DU&S=
>ex=3DU&Age=3D&x=3D70&y=3D15
>
>1. GLEN FROHMAN 43481-061 49-White-M 02-23-2004 RELEASED
>
>Even THIS does not prove WHAT Glen was convicted of.
No one has claimed it does. Only that, in direct contrast to the
claims you've presented via implication, he was convicted.
One can infer that he was convicted of the crimes for which he
was investigated, but that's not an absolute guaranty.
>It does NOT state sentence, only an exit date.
How many people do you know that are listed in a Federal
Bureau of Prisons' locator list, with or without an exit date, that
were not convicted?
I do hope you realize you've totaly destroyed your own implied
claim that Glen wasn't convicted.
It's always nice when YOU offer the proof that you were wrong.
Will you be able to admit your error, or prove, once again, that by
your own standards, you knew the truth and were lying all along?
>
>You DO know the difference between
>INDICTMENT and CONVICTION, don't you, Kent?
Ken and I are two different people. You replied to his post.
Your latest proof that you have Fregoli (I'm being kind and
presuming it's not proof that your admitted use and abuse of illegal
drugs has made honesty IMPOSSIBLE for you, except by accident or
force) aside, yes. Just like the last two times you've asked.
You've yet to answer a question I've asked several times.
Why are you so obsessed about a man you've never met on-line or
in real life?
Why were you so compelled to bring his name into the discussion?
Until you mentioned him, I was unaware he exists. Moe had never
mentioned him in any post I read until YOU brought up his name.
>
>Were you the anonymous idiot who confused them?
Just like the last two times you asked, no.
Are you the idiot that wants to claim that Frohman's conviction
is non-existent and that it was not for the very crimes listed in the
investigation, where the evidence is presented? (hint: Yes, you are.)
>
>Do you have any explanation for Maureen's LINK
>which was apparently broken WHEN IT WAS POSTED?
Do you know ANYTHING at all about the Web, Web pages, or
the Internet in general? Anything at all?
Have you ever used "Frontpage?" It's a WYSIWYG automated web page
editor. It was crap when it was written, and it's descendents are
still crap, and can do things to html formatting you would not believe
unless you saw it.
Ever done a C&P of a piece (LOL) and picked up stray characters,
words, numbers, even a graphic or two, in your blocking, only to have
to edit them out when you past? Is it possible you might have missed
characters that needed removing?
I'll save you some time. Yes.
That you do so, frequently, seems acceptable to you, but if
someone else does it, well, that's horrible.
How do you rationalize this, Greg? Please answer, unless honesty
is just too difficult for you.
>
>Why would Moe post a very broken link and
>claim that it proved Glen was convicted?
With it you, or more plausibly someone else, was able to find the
information. You whine about it above.
>
>Did you think it ever actually worked with an
>http prefix buried in the middle of the link
>and the word servlet chopped off?
Are you going to claim that the characters h, t, t, and p, if
used in a string of characters that make up the number substitute URL
will negate the address?
Please show your evidence of this, using pie charts as necessary.
"http" as characters, even if presented in an URL (which is NOT
the real address at all; that being made up of a string of numbers)
without the "://" as part of "http://" will have zero effect on the
address accessibility. How often do you simply enter www. at the
start of a URL?
On the other hand, the URL given by Moe appears to have been
either a C&P error, or outdated and replaced. Something any erudite
person would have realized. If they weren't stupid as well as
ignorant, as you once again prove you are, fool.
If you really wanted the information, and weren't stone cold
stupid, you would have worked very hard to find the BOP web site, and
do that search. Yes, you FINALLY did so, or someone else did and sent
you the link, but the fact is you are simply running your usual
avoidance scam for the purpose of creating a "plausible deniability,"
just as you have done for at least the past two years.
You actually believe that no one can see you behind the curtain,
Whiz? Or is your motive so sick that you don't care if you are seen as
the CPS shill you are?
You have a long record at this game. And I doubt anyone is being
fooled by it now. You likely conned some people early on, ensuring CPS
would win, but you're so screwed up you actually allowed me to PROVE
you're a CPS shill, and now people ignore your advice.
Still you try.
You consistently allow me to PROVE that you're desperate to have
CPS win 100% of the time.
To think that you could still be getting families torn apart if
you had just let me be when I left ASCPS. But you couldn't. You HAD
to follow me all over Usenet, motivating me to prove you're nothing
more than a CPS shill. Now people ignore your advice and in all
likelihood, prevail against your precious CPS.
womanGoddess
> On Nov 5, 9:31 pm, womanGoddess <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 5, 4:21 pm, womanGoddess <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 2, 10:03 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 2, 1:17 pm, TOP <T...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Going for plausible deniability again, Hanson?
>
> > > > > Why did you avoid the archives? Searching on google news withOUT going
> > > > > to the year, or withOUT using the archives, returns only recent news. It
> > > > > says so on the google news search page.
>
> > > > > Of course you innocently missed that, right?
>
> > > > > But then you have never failed to use archives before to stalk others.
> > > > > Mistake or lie. You tell us.
>
> > > >http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Glen+Frohman+pirated&btnG=Sear...
>
> > > > > Care to explain all your lies about Frohman, or did you just ""not
> > > > > know?"" LOL
>
> > > > > TOP (The Other Pangborn)
>
> > > > The best it shows is an indictment and a partner who turned states
> > > > evidence.
> > > > Why is there no story about CONVICTION?
> > > > You DO know that an indictment is not a conviction, right?
>
> > > >http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DDNB&p_theme=d...
>
> > > >http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0F5...
> X > And the idiot once again posts something
> X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>
> So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
> know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
You seem to be the " dumbass" Greg, which isn't surprising because
you ARe incredibly stupid.
There's a reason why an online newspaper web site has the copyright
notice on their stuff. Maybe you should have done some actual research
on copyright laws before you in your usual stupidity posted
copyrighted material. " Fair use" does not mean the whole article,
numb nuts.
>
> > > Heres a clue, Greg. Compare that with the list of MPAA convictions on
> > > the web site whose addie I posted some weeks ago. If you actually
> > > have some cognitive thought, you can easily figure out which
> > > conviction is his,
>
> > > Moe
> > > Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
> > > " A vampire cop? REALLY?"
> > > "http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
>
> > > Know your scum---http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>
> > Oh greg, here's where I posted Frohman's convict number:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.collecting.cards.non-sports/msg/85...
>
> Moe > I even had a link where people can see for themselves in the
> post.
>
> The link is broken and as far as I can tell never did work.
(( rolls eyes)) The google groups link is broken?
Bullshit.
I showed clearly in the post the search at the BOP.gov web site.
Do'n't tell me you are so brain dead that you didn't go directly to
www.bop.gov, went through the inmate locator search, typed in
Frohman's name and missed this:
Or are you still denying he was convicted of anything now?
That is " PROOF of conviction" greg.
Your response?
(( crickets chirping))
>
> http://inmateloc.bop.gov/locatorservlet/gov.bop.inmatelocator.FindInm...
>
> Let's break that down:
>
> http://inmateloc.bop.gov/
>
> Dead. Is it in the internet archive?
Your idiocy is showing. Obviously you can't figure out its a BOP web
site and go from there.
Damn, you are an idiot!!!
And you actually think what you posted about ME would " intimidate
me"?
AMATEUR!!!
>
> What STATE would that be for?
> Why no designation of state or Federal?
BOP is federal, stupid.
>
> Why is there an http in the MIDDLE of that link?
> Why is the word servlet chopped off even
> way back in 2004?
It was an old link. You could have redone it yourself by going to the
BOP web site, but noooooooooo......
>
> http://inmateloc.bop.gov/locatorservlet/gov.bop.inmatelocator.FindInm...
>
> How could this LINK have EVER worked with
> http in the middle and servlet chopped off?
>
> You said people could check for themselves.
I did. The BOP web site and type in his name.
>
> But that's not really true, is it Maureen?
(( Derisive laugh))
Any more stallings greggie?
>
> Moe > So Greg, are you still claiming that he was never convicted?
>
> I never claimed that he wasn't convicted.
> I claimed you stalked him for over 10 years
> and haven't posted online verifiable PROOF
> that he was CONVICTED.
I never " stalked" him, or anyone, for that matter.
DIRECT proof of his conviction is in your face right now.
Any more evasion excuses Greg?
>
> I saw proof he was indicted, and one of your
> anonymous henchmen posted it as if proof
> of indictment was proof of conviction.
>
> Did you refer to 43481-061 in any other posts online?
I didn't need to greg. One post was enough when Frohman was claiming
he never was in prison. I proved he lied about it.
>
> Is that a state or Federal number?
BOP is a federal prison system, dumbass.
(( rolls eyes))
>
> You DO know that an indictment is NOT a conviction, right, Moe?
So how come he was IN a federal prison Greg? For a vacation?
Now watch greg evade and ignore.
womanGoddess
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2heaf5lpa04mekmmk...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:17:04 -0800 (PST), Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > [Snips for brevity]
>
> >>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy
> >>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's Troy
> >>> > > residence on June 20.
> >>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>
> >>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>
> >>X > And the idiot once again posts something
> >>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>
> >>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
> >>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>
> > Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously.
> > Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not
> > allow for the copying of the entire work.
>
> Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous "Betamax"
> case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
This is about an online newspaper and their use of copyright on what
they actually own, not a technology, Kennie. That was a patent
copyright claim, not a publisher ownership claim.
Do try to stick to the actual subject at hand rather than changing it
to try to save your butt monkey's ass.
womanGoddess
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:01fbf5prsbapqoddr...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy
> >>>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's
> >>>>> > > Troy
> >>>>> > > residence on June 20.
> >>>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>
> >>>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>
> >>>>X > And the idiot once again posts something
> >>>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>
> >>>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
> >>>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>
> >>> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously.
> >>> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not
> >>> allow for the copying of the entire work.
>
> >>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous
> >>"Betamax"
> >>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
>
> > Cite?
>
> You can't be THAT stupid. Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
>
> http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/
>
>
> READ you illiterate ASSHOLE;
>
> "Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of
> individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting
> does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use."
>
> http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=betamaxcase
>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technology/articles/groksterprim...
>
> Now what IDIOTIC comeback can we expect from our resident IDIOT POLACK????
The issue was Greg's violation of an online copyrighted story.
Different matter Kennie, and you damn well know it.
Unlike Greg, you are just smart enough to figure out Greg might be
in some legal trouble over this repeated copyright violation if he was
reported to the proper copyright owners about it.
((VBEG))
womanGoddess
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:38:12 -0800 (PST), Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
Actually when Frohman was indicted and convicted of was two counts
of conspiracy to commit video piracy.
If Greg wants to obsess about Frohman, I say to him go ahead. It'd be
one more of his handful of cyberstalking targets he seems to waste so
much time on. ((Shrugs)) I had personal reasons to be in Frohman's
case, reasons I mentioned numerous times in old posts about the
subject, and when he was finally arrested, I pretty much closed his
file. After Greg tried getting on my case with his usual cowardly
references to the EBay thief, including his usual bad spelling of a
name, I went back and did some basic updating out of curiosity and
found where Frohman claimed his precious cardboard boxed were stolen,
among other things. :-D
>
>
>
> >You DO know that indictment is NOT conviction, right?
>
> Have I ever claimed it is?
Only Greg claims that.
In order have an indictment, there must be proof of criminal activity
presented.
Is Greg now claiming that Frohman WASN'T pirating tapes and selling
them illegally?
>
>
>
> >Do you think Moe does, and her idiot anonymous ""helper""?
>
> As I asked in another thread, has she ever claimed, directly or
> through implication, that she does?
> I note you RAN from my question. You do that a lot when you're
> proved to be the liar you are.
Or when he can't continue with that red herring.
By now Greg reeks of dead fish.
>
> >Can you find any more on 43481-061 or Glen Frohman?
>
> Yes, if motivated to do so.
(( rolls eyes)) As a BOP number pretty much anyone can use it to
actually find the details of his conviction, where he was incarcerated
and so forth.
Except for mentally deficient people like Greg Hanson, OC.
>
> >Was that YOU who posted the anonymous idiocy, Kent?
>
> No.
>
> >You seem to exhibit some subtle sort of ownership
> >of the hollow argument on Copyright v FAIR USE.
>
> Your use and abuse of illegal drugs may cause you to see claims
> of ownership where none exist, but that's your issue to address.
>
> [snip of Greg's admitting I'm correct]
>
> It's accepted that when I'm correct and you can no longer lie
> your way out of it, you post that which you KNOW isn't about me.
> You've already admitted, freely, that the information you post
> isn't about me but some other person who is named Kent Wills. Are you
> so stoned that you think anyone is buying it now?
>
> Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
> (DOB 05/22/1959)
> CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
> Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
> OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
> Comments: CT 2 SPEED
> Disposition Status
> GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
>
> "That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
> Greg Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, or proving he's so
> stupid he thinks I'm Asian.
> MID:<c6bac3f6-7a0e-4bf8-8ddd-d77bccfc6...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/395db830731df54ahttp://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
>
> Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
> drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
> alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
>
> Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
>
> "My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
> in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
> the Child Abuse registry, for example."
> -- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
> Message-ID: <35120b16.0401111639.6825f...@posting.google.com>
>
> " ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
> minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
> minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
> the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
> address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
> April 2000, Gregory Hansonhttp://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
>
> Path:
> news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups:
> misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
>
> With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
> into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
> videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
> was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
> water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
> a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
> gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
> were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
> She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
> prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
>
> "Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
> triumphantly.
>
> --a true story
Moe
womanGoddess
> SUPREME COURT OVERSEER ATTORNEY KUNT WILLS - GARAGE BURGLAR"Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:oa0cf51g0bf4lg8j0...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> >>>>>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video
> >>>>>>> > > piracy
> >>>>>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's
> >>>>>>> > > Troy
> >>>>>>> > > residence on June 20.
> >>>>>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>
> >>>>>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>
> >>>>>>X > And the idiot once again posts something
> >>>>>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>
> >>>>>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
> >>>>>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>
> >>>>> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously.
> >>>>> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not
> >>>>> allow for the copying of the entire work.
>
> >>>>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous
> >>>>"Betamax"
> >>>>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
>
> >>> Cite?
>
> >>You can't be THAT stupid. Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
>
> >>http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/
>
>
> >>READ you illiterate ASSHOLE;
> >>"Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of
> >>individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of
> >>time-shifting
> >>does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use."
> > Are you so drunk you think TV and print are the same thing? You must
> > be.
>
> Hey IMBECILLE try READING sometime.YOU FUKKKKKING MORON!
>
> >>http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=betamaxcase
> >>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technology/articles/groksterprim...
> >>Now what IDIOTIC comeback can we expect from our resident IDIOT POLACK????
> > None. Since I consistently PROVE I'm your intellectual superior,
> > nothing I post could be seen as idiotic.
>
> I see you SNIPPED some of the links I provided. In your POLACK
> reasoning, you seem to believe that this PROVES some point. Such as your
> POLACK claim that it has NO relevance to printed materials. In the finding
> of the Supremes you might see it applies to ALL media. Something a STUPID
> POLACK can't reason. The FAIR USE DOCTRINE applies to *.*! As do its
> exceptions, such as reproducing a work and claiming it as your own, or in
> trying to commercially exploit the work, such as selling copies. Other than
> that, with proper attribution one can quote part or ALL of an article to
> educate or to make a point. The STUPID argument you are TRYING to make,
> Polack, is one that IDIOTS on Usenet have tried to make for years and in the
> end they all get humiliated. READ up on the issue.
Tell that to Michael Savage and how his lawsiut against CAIR fared out
Kennie.
womanGoddess
>
> 1. GLEN FROHMAN 43481-061 49-White-M 02-23-2004 RELEASED
>
> Even THIS does not prove WHAT Glen was convicted of.
> It does NOT state sentence, only an exit date.
Are you still denying he was convicted greg?
Seems to me I showed you WRONG. Instead of being a mature adult and
admit you were in error, you try this pathetic red herring attempt.
(( rolls eyes))
Done thrashing in your tar pit yet Greg?
>
> You DO know the difference between
> INDICTMENT and CONVICTION, don't you, Kent?
How can one be convicted without and indictment Greg? BTW the news
articles showed Frohman was indicted.
You really shouldn't paint yourself in corners Greg. Makes you look
really, really stupid.
>
> Were you the anonymous idiot who confused them?
Confused who?
>
> Do you have any explanation for Maureen's LINK
> which was apparently broken WHEN IT WAS POSTED?
It was an old link. There was enough clues in the old post for you to
go to the BOP web site yourself and do a search even a fourth grader
could do.
For some reason you seem incapable of doing simple cognitive tasks
like that.
>
> Why would Moe post a very broken link and
> claim that it proved Glen was convicted?
Since I now showed a link that works, what's your excuse now?
Do enlighten us how someone who served time IN prison was not
convicted or indicted.
>
> Did you think it ever actually worked with an
> http prefix buried in the middle of the link
> and the word servlet chopped off?
Did you even think of doing the BOP web site search yourself?
Man you are STUPID!!!!
But then we know that already.
womanGoddess
> Frohman's name and missed this:
>
Um Greggie is this YOU?
My my, Did YOU serve some federal prison time?
Since you like to claim that anyone who shares the same name as your
stalking target IS that person, I thought your own standards of "
proof" would be used on you.
krp
"womanGoddess" <fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f38c0cbf-2668-4c0f...@h34g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
MAUREEN MCALLISTER> Are you still denying he was convicted greg?
Well it certainly indicates he was convicted of SOMETHING. Could be
anything from terrorism to chewing gum in class.
womanGoddess
> "womanGoddess" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
And yet you seem to ignore your patsy Greg's own little post that
says what he was CHARGED WITH.
You have a remarkable ability to ignore the facts, particularly
when it is to your advantage to ignore the facts.
Or are you in fact as stupid as Greg is, so stupid that you need all
the dots connected and presented to you on the spot?
One does not serve federal prison time for chewing gum in class.
BTW how can you explain how Greg Hanson's name came up in the BOP
inmate search database?
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >I am still fairly amused that some anonymous
>> >schmuck thought he had PROVED Glen
>> >had been convicted using only proof that
>> >Glen had been INDICTED.
>>
>> What does Glen have to do with copyright law? Are you so scared
>> of the truth that you MUST divert attention away from it? Or are you
>> once again offering undeniable PROOF that you're obsessed with a man
>> you've never met on-line or in real life?
>
> Actually when Frohman was indicted and convicted of was two counts
>of conspiracy to commit video piracy.
Ah, so that's the connection.
>
> If Greg wants to obsess about Frohman,
If? Greg has proved, beyond any possible doubt, that he is
obsessed with Glen. So much so that Greg needed to bring Glen's name
into the discussion.
True, his intent was to distract from the truth you were
presenting at the time, but in doing so, he offered the PROOF that
he's obsessed with Glen.
>I say to him go ahead. It'd be
>one more of his handful of cyberstalking targets he seems to waste so
>much time on.
It's not like Greg has a job to take up any time.
>((Shrugs)) I had personal reasons to be in Frohman's
>case, reasons I mentioned numerous times in old posts about the
>subject, and when he was finally arrested, I pretty much closed his
>file. After Greg tried getting on my case with his usual cowardly
>references to the EBay thief, including his usual bad spelling of a
>name, I went back and did some basic updating out of curiosity and
>found where Frohman claimed his precious cardboard boxed were stolen,
>among other things. :-D
>
I'm not so motivated to check on the guy. Having never met him,
on-line or in real life, I doubt I will ever be motivated.
Had I encountered him, I might well be motivated to check up on
him.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >You DO know that indictment is NOT conviction, right?
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0Have I ever claimed it is?
>
> Only Greg claims that.
>
> In order have an indictment, there must be proof of criminal activity
>presented.
But it can be very weak proof.
The prosecution is the only one presenting evidence at a GJ
indictment. As such, it's more news worthy when an indictment is not
granted.
>
> Is Greg now claiming that Frohman WASN'T pirating tapes and selling
>them illegally?
It's still possible he wasn't. Not likely, but possible.
An indictment means nothing, and a conviction only means the
prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Do you think Moe does, and her idiot anonymous ""helper""?
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0As I asked in another thread, has she ever claimed, directly o=
>r
>> through implication, that she does?
>> =A0 =A0 =A0I note you RAN from my question. =A0You do that a lot when you=
>'re
>> proved to be the liar you are.
>
> Or when he can't continue with that red herring.
>By now Greg reeks of dead fish.
Maybe he should try using shampoo :)
>
>>
>> >Can you find any more on 43481-061 or Glen Frohman?
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0Yes, if motivated to do so.
>
> (( rolls eyes)) As a BOP number pretty much anyone can use it to
>actually find the details of his conviction, where he was incarcerated
>and so forth.
>
The problem for me is a lack of motivation.
Greg firmly believes that since he is obsessed with the guy,
EVERYONE must be.
> Except for mentally deficient people like Greg Hanson, OC.
Greg is mentally retarded. So true is this claim that Greg has
never offered any sort of denial. And by his standards, a lack of
denial is an admission that the claim is correct, Greg is mentally
retarded.
He really is UNABLE to understand how to use the number to find
information about the guy.
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, or proving he's so
stupid he thinks I'm Asian.
MID:<c6bac3f6-7a0e-4bf8-8ddd-d77bccfc6...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/395db830731df54a
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> 1. GLEN FROHMAN 43481-061 49 -White-M 02-23-2004 RELEASED
>>
>> Even THIS does not prove WHAT Glen was convicted of.
>> It does NOT state sentence, only an exit date.
>
> Are you still denying he was convicted greg?
He is, actually.
>
> Seems to me I showed you WRONG. Instead of being a mature adult and
>admit you were in error, you try this pathetic red herring attempt.
Greg is, emotionally and intellectually, about nine years old.
>
>(( rolls eyes))
>
> Done thrashing in your tar pit yet Greg?
>
BURN!
>>
>> You DO know the difference between
>> INDICTMENT and CONVICTION, don't you, Kent?
>
> How can one be convicted without and indictment Greg? BTW the news
>articles showed Frohman was indicted.
If one has a preliminary hearing, or the prosecution files an
information, accusation, or complaint, an indictment is not necessary.
In a federal matter, such as Glen's, an indictment is, I think,
required by the Constitution.
>
> You really shouldn't paint yourself in corners Greg. Makes you look
>really, really stupid.
Greg does this a great deal, then whines that he has given
himself no other options.
>
>
>>
>> Were you the anonymous idiot who confused them?
>
> Confused who?
>
>>
>> Do you have any explanation for Maureen's LINK
>> which was apparently broken WHEN IT WAS POSTED?
>
> It was an old link. There was enough clues in the old post for you to
>go to the BOP web site yourself and do a search even a fourth grader
>could do.
>
> For some reason you seem incapable of doing simple cognitive tasks
>like that.
It's due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs he admitted.
>
>>
>> Why would Moe post a very broken link and
>> claim that it proved Glen was convicted?
>
> Since I now showed a link that works, what's your excuse now?
He will likely run from the thread.
>
> Do enlighten us how someone who served time IN prison was not
>convicted or indicted.
>
He was convicted. He was also indicted.
Greg has trouble understanding this.
>>
>> Did you think it ever actually worked with an
>> http prefix buried in the middle of the link
>> and the word servlet chopped off?
>
> Did you even think of doing the BOP web site search yourself?
He couldn't think of it. Someone had to send him a link.
>
> Man you are STUPID!!!!
>
>But then we know that already.
Greg goes out of his way to PROVE he's stupid (unable to learn).
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>> 1. GLEN FROHMAN 43481-061 49-White-M 02-23-2004 RELEASED
>>
>> Even THIS does not prove WHAT Glen was convicted of.
>> It does NOT state sentence, only an exit date.
>
> MAUREEN MCALLISTER> Are you still denying he was convicted greg?
>
> Well it certainly indicates he was convicted of SOMETHING. Could be
>anything from terrorism to chewing gum in class.
Are you so drunk you think one gets federal prison time for
chewing gum in class?
Read the true bill handed down by the Grand Jury, stupid.
"you are reading Moore's SELECTIVE material that is HIGHLY edited."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn claiming in misc.legal that David Moore can
and does edit Google's Usenet archive.
Message-ID: <n9Sfm.1372$nh2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> > 1. GLEN FROHMAN 43481-061 49-White-M 02-23-2004 RELEASED
>>
>> > Even THIS does not prove WHAT Glen was convicted of.
>> > It does NOT state sentence, only an exit date.
>>
>> MAUREEN MCALLISTER> Are you still denying he was convicted greg?
>>
>> Well it certainly indicates he was convicted of SOMETHING. Could be
>> anything from terrorism to chewing gum in class.
>
> And yet you seem to ignore your patsy Greg's own little post that
>says what he was CHARGED WITH.
In Pangborn's warped view, one can be convicted of that for which
they've not been charged.
>
> You have a remarkable ability to ignore the facts, particularly
>when it is to your advantage to ignore the facts.
He's been doing that since the days of Fidonet, if the claims of
people who recall him from Fidonet are accurate.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/fidonet.html
>
> Or are you in fact as stupid as Greg is, so stupid that you need all
>the dots connected and presented to you on the spot?
>
> One does not serve federal prison time for chewing gum in class.
Ken thinks they do.
>
> BTW how can you explain how Greg Hanson's name came up in the BOP
>inmate search database?
Under Gregborn Logic�, this is because the Greg we know did
federal time. Both Greg and Ken believe everyone with the same first
and last name are all the same person. They've offered the proof of
this themselves.
This means they must both claim that the Greg Hanson we know did
federal time, or admit they've been far less than honest about their
standards.
Kent Wills
Even after I proved Pangborn wrong, with a link to the copyright
office web site, he still makes the claim. Up to that point Ken could
have stated he was in error about what is and is not allowed under
fair use. Now he has no choice but to admit he has been lying all
along.
It's little wonder his CONsulting business has failed. While
David's TRUTH site (http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com) did do some
damage, Ken has proved he can bring down his business far better on
his own.
"It's attached to a thing called a "WIFE" Betty."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn showing how he views his wife
as an object and NOT a human being.
Message-ID: <KLf2j.31312$9h.4837@trnddc07>
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous
>> >>"Betamax"
>> >>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 Cite?
>>
>> You can't be THAT stupid. =A0Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
>>
>> http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_....
>>
>> READ you illiterate ASSHOLE;
>>
>> "Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of
>> individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shift=
>ing
>> does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use."
>>
>> http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=3Dbetamaxcase
>>
>> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=3DUS&vol=3D464&inv=
>...
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technology/articles/groksterprim...
>>
>> Now what IDIOTIC comeback can we expect from our resident IDIOT POLACK???=
>?
>
> The issue was Greg's violation of an online copyrighted story.
>Different matter Kennie, and you damn well know it.
>
Of course he knows. I was able to prove his claim wrong.
So fearful was, and is, Pangborn of the truth, he snipped the
proof when he replied.
> Unlike Greg, you are just smart enough to figure out Greg might be
>in some legal trouble over this repeated copyright violation if he was
>reported to the proper copyright owners about it.
>
>((VBEG))
If they opt to take action.
Some self admitted user and abuser of illegal drugs isn't likely
to do any real damage to the paper. Further, he has no job, and no
means of support, other than mooching off Lisa. They might win a
suit, but with Greg having nothing, that's all they would have.
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
> Um Greggie is this YOU?
>
>http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=3DIDSearch&needing=
>MoreList=3Dfalse&IDType=3DIRN&IDNumber=3D35580-048&x=3D71&y=3D16
>
> My my, Did YOU serve some federal prison time?
By Greg's own standards, everyone with the same first name are
all the same person, he MUST admit it is him.
>
> Since you like to claim that anyone who shares the same name as your
>stalking target IS that person, I thought your own standards of "
>proof" would be used on you.
He hates that. He is to be exempted from his own standards.
Greegor
G > 1. GLEN FROHMAN 43481-061 49-White-M 02-23-2004 RELEASED
G >
G > Even THIS does not prove WHAT Glen was convicted of.
G > It does NOT state sentence, only an exit date.
Moe > Are you still denying he was convicted greg?
Got a LINK to where I said he wasn't convicted?
I just posted a WORKING link proving he was incarcerated.
But it doesn't say WHAT he was convicted of.
I note that you apparently NEVER posted proof that he was.
Your anonymous flunky tried to pass off proof of
an INDICTMENT as proof of conviction!
Moe > Seems to me I showed you WRONG.
It might seem that way to a moron like you.
Please post a LINK to where I stated that Glen was not convicted.
YOU on the other hand, stalked and harassed the
guy without even proving that he really was convicted.
Not that his conviction justifies your stalking either!
Moe > Instead of being a mature adult and
Moe > admit you were in error, you try this
Moe > pathetic red herring attempt.
Moe >
Moe > (( rolls eyes))
Moe >
Moe > Done thrashing in your tar pit yet Greg?
G > You DO know the difference between
G > INDICTMENT and CONVICTION, don't you, Kent?
Moe > How can one be convicted without and
Moe > indictment Greg? BTW the news
Moe > articles showed Frohman was indicted.
Indictment is more like being CHARGED
than being convicted.
You could be indicted and never convicted.
Moe > You really shouldn't paint yourself
Moe > in corners Greg. Makes you look
Moe > really, really stupid.
Your anonymous stooge tried to pass off proof
of indictment as proof of conviction.
G > Were you the anonymous idiot who confused them?
Moe > Confused who?
Indictment confused with conviction.
G > Do you have any explanation for
G > Maureen's LINK which was apparently
G > broken WHEN IT WAS POSTED?
Moe > It was an old link.
Apparently not working even when you posted it!
Moe > There was enough clues in the old post
Moe > for you to go to the BOP web site yourself
Moe > and do a search even a fourth grader
Moe > could do.
Moe > For some reason you seem incapable
Moe > of doing simple cognitive tasks like that.
Which is why YOU didn't post a working link.
And you still haven't posted a link that
describes WHAT he was convicted for,
or for how long.
G > Why would Moe post a very broken link and
G > claim that it proved Glen was convicted?
Moe > Since I now showed a link that works,
Moe > what's your excuse now?
You didn't provide a working link.
My question is WHY not?
Moe > Do enlighten us how someone who served
Moe > time IN prison was not convicted or indicted.
G > Did you think it ever actually worked with an
G > http prefix buried in the middle of the link
G > and the word servlet chopped off?
Moe > Did you even think of doing the BOP web site search yourself?
You didn't answer the damned question!
WHY didn't YOU post a working link to the info?
You stalked and haarassed the poor cuss for
over TEN YEARS and YOU brought him up
because you are still obsessed, so WHY
didn't you post a working BOP link before?
It's a bit like the Bobbi thing.
Just how many people named Bobbi did you stalk and harass?
Moe > Man you are STUPID!!!!
Moe > But then we know that already.
I like that you think that.
PS - Got any more details on Glen Frohman,
like the court records?
Should I post a SCAN of such records or
will you post a LINK to same?
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>G > 1. GLEN FROHMAN �43481-061 49-White-M �02-23-2004 �RELEASED
>G >
>G > Even THIS does not prove WHAT Glen was convicted of.
>G > It does NOT state sentence, only an exit date.
>
>Moe > �Are you still denying he was convicted greg?
>
>Got a LINK to where I said he wasn't convicted?
Message-ID:
<50281d68-b110-4cd7...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
>
>I just posted a WORKING link proving he was incarcerated.
So did Moe.
>But it doesn't say WHAT he was convicted of.
>
Once again you offer the PROOF that you HATE all that is America.
People aren't just thrown into prison. They must first be convicted.
But then, you think people should be tried without first being charged
with a crime.
It should be clear to one as stone cold stupid as you that he was
convicted for the charges presented in the true bill.
>I note that you apparently NEVER posted proof that he was.
Why do you lie? I've asked this question of you MANY times, yet
you have never answered. You've yet to even acknowledge it. In fact,
you prefer to snip it when replying rather that even risk an honest
answer.
>Your anonymous flunky tried to pass off proof of
>an INDICTMENT as proof of conviction!
What's the MID for this post you reference?
>
>Moe > �Seems to me I showed you WRONG.
>
>It might seem that way to a moron like you.
Projection is a bad thing, Greg. You should cease.
>
>Please post a LINK to where I stated that Glen was not convicted.
>
Message-ID:
<50281d68-b110-4cd7...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
>YOU on the other hand, stalked and harassed the
>guy without even proving that he really was convicted.
You've yet to offer evidence to support, let alone prove, Moe
stalked and/or harassed Glen.
She did prove he was convicted. If you would stay off the
illegal drugs, you MIGHT be able to comprehend such things. Although
it is possible the mental retardation you're use and abuse of illegal
drugs has given you is permanent.
>Not that his conviction justifies your stalking either!
Until you brought his name into the discussion, no one had ever
mentioned him.
Why are you so obsessed with the guy? Have you met him on-line
or in real life? Is there something he did to you, Greg, that forces
you to DEMAND links to information about the guy?
What is your motivation for wanting so much information about
him?
>
>Moe > Instead of being a mature adult and
>Moe > admit you were in error, you try this
>Moe > pathetic red herring attempt.
>Moe >
>Moe > (( rolls eyes))
>Moe >
>Moe > �Done thrashing in your tar pit yet Greg?
>
>G > You DO know the difference between
>G > INDICTMENT and CONVICTION, don't you, Kent?
>
>Moe > �How can one be convicted without and
>Moe > indictment Greg? BTW the news
>Moe > articles showed Frohman was indicted.
>
>Indictment is more like being CHARGED
>than being convicted.
It is EXACTLY like being charged.
But then, you PROVED you hate the U.S. so much that you want
people tried without being charged.
>
>You could be indicted and never convicted.
But in a federal case, like Glen's, one can't be convicted without
being indicted.
That Glen spent time in prison shows he was convicted.
If you have anything that shows he was convicted for anything
other than the crimes for which he was tried, offer it (a win for
you). If you're once again offering proof that you're doing nothing
more than trying to distract from the truth, you'll provide nothing
(another in a LONG list of losses for you).
>
>Moe > �You really shouldn't paint yourself
>Moe > in corners Greg. �Makes you look
>Moe > really, really stupid.
>
>Your anonymous stooge tried to pass off proof
>of indictment as proof of conviction.
When? Unless you're flat out lying, you'll offer proof that
anyone did any such thing.
>
>G > Were you the anonymous idiot who confused them?
>
>Moe > �Confused who?
>
>Indictment confused with conviction.
That's a what, not a who.
Why did you often LIE and claim you are erudite when 100% of all
available evidence shows you are the polar opposite?
>
>G > Do you have any explanation for
>G > Maureen's LINK which was apparently
>G > broken WHEN IT WAS POSTED?
>
>Moe > It was an old link.
>
>Apparently not working even when you posted it!
Prove it.
BTW, using it, I was able to find the link you posted within
seconds. I find it of interest that it took you over a day.
Erudite is NOT a word one can honestly use to describe you.
>
>Moe > There was enough clues in the old post
>Moe > for you to go to the BOP web site yourself
>Moe > and do a search even a fourth grader
>Moe > could do.
>
>Moe > For some reason you seem incapable
>Moe > of doing simple cognitive tasks like that.
>
>Which is why YOU didn't post a working link.
Did you read my extremely simplified explanation regarding the
link? I expect the average fourth grader would comprehend, so you
should be able. Unless I have over estimated your intellectual level
again.
>
>And you still haven't posted a link that
>describes WHAT he was convicted for,
>or for how long.
Here's a free clue. He will have been convicted of the crime(s)
listed in the true bill handed down from the Grand Jury.
Let me guess, you're unable to figure out just how to find and
read that as well?
Time for you to stand DEMANDING people post links to it. You
NEED to know EVERYTHING about Glen.
Maybe you can whine about how I'm not posting a link to it. You
know how you LOVE to have me point out the requirement. It allows you
to claim you're a victim.
>
>G > Why would Moe post a very broken link and
>G > claim that it proved Glen was convicted?
>
>Moe > Since I now showed a link that works,
>Moe > what's your excuse now?
>
>You didn't provide a working link.
>My question is WHY not?
But she did. Why are you LYING and claiming she didn't?
That you snipped the URL in your reply doesn't mean she didn't
post it.
>
>Moe > Do enlighten us how someone �who served
>Moe > time IN prison was not convicted or indicted.
>
>G > Did you think it ever actually worked with an
>G > http prefix buried in the middle of the link
>G > and the word servlet chopped off?
>
>Moe > Did you even think of doing the BOP web site search yourself?
>
>You didn't answer the damned question!
Did she pull a Gregory Scott Hanson?
I've asked you questions and you've refused to answer.
Moe has asked you questions and you've refused to answer.
Dan has asked you questions and you've refused to answer.
I see that each time Moe uses your standards, you get testy. You
whine like a baby.
Why is that?
Please, "...answer the damned question!"
>WHY didn't YOU post a working link to the info?
She did. Your snipping it doesn't mean she didn't post it.
>You stalked and haarassed the poor cuss for
>over TEN YEARS and YOU brought him up
Why do you lie? I posted a link to the post where his name first
came up in misc.legal (you may recall you cried about it -- prove me
correct, please).
YOU posted his name. You have yet to explain why.
>because you are still obsessed, so WHY
>didn't you post a working BOP link before?
The link expired. I explained this in great detail.
>
>It's a bit like the Bobbi thing.
>Just how many people named Bobbi did you stalk and harass?
Bobbi who? I've asked you to be specific about this Bobbi woman,
and you've RUN from it each time.
Moe asked you and you RAN like the cowardly child (emotionally
and intellectually) you are.
Maybe you can muster up the ability to point out just which of
the thousands, if not millions, of women named Bobbi you mean.
>
>Moe > Man you are STUPID!!!!
>Moe > But then we know that already.
>
>I like that you think that.
I'm surprised you like that she thinks the truth.
>
>PS - Got any more details on Glen Frohman,
>like the court records?
Why are you so obsessed with him?
>
>Should I post a SCAN of such records or
>will you post a LINK to same?
How obsessed are you with the guy?
You bring his name into the discussion, then LIE and claim it was
Moe. You seek out all sorts of records about him and cry like a baby
when Moe won't help you stalk the man.
When she finally helps you, you cry like a baby because the link
didn't work and you had to do your stalking without her assistance.
Now you're whining that you want more information about the guy.
Why are you so obsessed with Glen? What is your motivation for
constantly asking about him and seeking out all you can find about
him?
Dan Sullivan
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:32:17 -0600, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > will believe the questions haven't
> >been asked if he keeps asking them.
>
> Good grief! I have got to cease proofreading my own posts. :)
>
> That should have been, "...will believe the questions haven't
> been answered if he keeps asking them."
>
> I apologize for any confusion my poor proofreading skills may
> have caused.
>
> --
> "Kent"
Please don't cross posts any messages to alt.support.child-protective-
services that don't have anything to do with child abuse.
Greegor
Are you trying to make the point that you might have the wrong Glen
Frohman?
There are several listed in the USA.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>KW> By Greg's own standards, everyone with the same first name are
>KW> all the same person, he MUST admit it is him.
>
>What is my date of birth, Kent?
Since I've not been granted access to your birth certificate, I
can't actually KNOW what it is. I do know you claim it's May 22,
1959.
Hey, that's the same date of birth for the Greg Hanson who got
convicted for OWI in Iowa back in 1996. Wild, huh?
What does your date of birth have to do with your standards
(everyone with the same first and last name, even if one is a Usenet
nym, are all the same person) anyway?
>Are you trying to make the point that you might have the wrong Glen
>Frohman?
No.
The topic at hand is your stay in federal prison, when your
standards are applied.
>
>There are several listed in the USA.
Sorry, no time to answer in more detail about "several."
I'm still counting the number of people named Kent Wills and
David Moore in this country and England. Nearly every one with a
different birthday and different parents and different addresses.
But in your drug addled mind, they are all the same person.
To paraphrase the sage, "RR RR R R R."
womanGoddess
Oh really? How many have you found in your stalking Greg?
SeanSpade
> On Nov 5, 9:31 pm, womanGoddess <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 5, 4:21 pm, womanGoddess <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 2, 10:03 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 2, 1:17 pm, TOP <T...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Going for plausible deniability again, Hanson?
>
> > > > > Why did you avoid the archives? Searching on google news withOUT going
> > > > > to the year, or withOUT using the archives, returns only recent news. It
> > > > > says so on the google news search page.
>
> > > > > Of course you innocently missed that, right?
>
> > > > > But then you have never failed to use archives before to stalk others.
> > > > > Mistake or lie. You tell us.
>
> > > >http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Glen+Frohman+pirated&btnG=Sear...
>
> > > > > Care to explain all your lies about Frohman, or did you just ""not
> > > > > know?"" LOL
>
> > > > > TOP (The Other Pangborn)
>
> > > > The best it shows is an indictment and a partner who turned states
> > > > evidence.
> > > > Why is there no story about CONVICTION?
> > > > You DO know that an indictment is not a conviction, right?
>
> > > >http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DDNB&p_theme=d...
>
> > > >http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0F5...
>
> > > > Illegally taped concerts sold
> > > > BYLINE: Wes Hills Dayton Daily News
> > > > DATE: August 8, 2002
> > > > PUBLICATION: Dayton Daily News (OH)
> > > > EDITION: CITY
> > > > SECTION: LOCAL
> > > > PAGE: B1
>
> > > > DAYTON - A Troy man was indicted Wednesday on charges he conspired to
> > > > sell on the Internet pirated videos of the Dave Matthews Band, Bruce
> > > > Springsteen and other performers.
>
> > > > Glen Frohman of 513 W. Market St. also was charged with selling
> > > > unauthorized videos on Oct. 5, 2001. Frohman faces 10 years in federal
> > > > prison if convicted on both charges.
>
> > > > The indictment claims Frohman, "on numerous occasions, would either
> > > > alone or with the assistance of other individuals, tape performances
> > > > of musical entertainers without the consent of said entertainers and
> > > > offer these videotapes for sale on the Internet through a Web site.
>
> > > > "Customers were instructed to send payment in the form of a check or
> > > > money order" to a post office box in Troy controlled by Frohman, the
> > > > indictment claims.
>
> > > > The "overt acts" in the conspiracy allege Frohman:
>
> > > > * Sent through the U.S. mail Oct. 5 a videotape of a live musical
> > > > performance of the Dave Matthews Band.
>
> > > > * Sent on Dec. 11 a videotape of a live musical performance of Bruce
> > > > Springsteen.
>
> > > > In a sworn statement, Postal Inspector M.E. Arthur details how the
> > > > case developed:
>
> > > > Arthur states that he was contacted Aug. 15 by the agent for musician
> > > > Eric Johnson regarding Frohman advertising a Web site offering to sell
> > > > concert videos from numerous musicians.
>
> > > > On Sept. 25, Arthur states, he used an undercover name to place an
> > > > order through the Web site for the Dave Matthews Band's Tabernacle and
> > > > Austin City Limits .
>
> > > > Arthur states that after he received the videos for $39, Wendy Yascur,
> > > > coordinator of evidence control and anti-piracy special projects for
> > > > the Recording Industry Association of America, was contacted.
>
> > > > Yascur sent the videotapes to Coran Capshaw, manager for the Dave
> > > > Matthews Band, who provided a sworn statement stating the band had
> > > > "never licensed, consented to or otherwise authorized neither Glen
> > > > Frohman . . . to manufacture, distribute or offer to sell the videos
> > > > of the live musical performances."
>
> > > > On Dec. 11, Arthur states, he ordered five more videos - live musical
> > > > performances of Tori Amos, Bruce Springsteen, Eric Clapton, Prince and
> > > > Phish - and received them after sending $153.
>
> > > > Again, Yascur forwarded the tapes to the musicians' management
> > > > companies to confirm they had been pirated.
>
> > > > Arthur also cites an e-mail message allegedly sent by Frohman to Jim
> > > > Weiss, president, The I Trade Group Inc., in which he states, "Yeah, I
> > > > deal in bootleg tapes . . . (video currently, but it was audio for 15
> > > > years.)"
>
> > > > Frohman also states he has "been running an online business with my
> > > > tapes for eight years."
>
> > > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy
> > > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's Troy
> > > > residence on June 20.
> > > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>
> > > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>
> X > And the idiot once again posts something
> X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>
> So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
> know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>
> > > the web site whose addie I posted some weeks ago. If you actually
> > > have some cognitive thought, you can easily figure out which
> > > conviction is his,
>
> > > Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
> > > " A vampire cop? REALLY?"
> > > "http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
>
>
> > Oh greg, here's where I posted Frohman's convict number:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.collecting.cards.non-sports/msg/85...
>
> Moe > I even had a link where people can see for themselves in the
> post.
>
> The link is broken and as far as I can tell never did work.
>
>
> Let's break that down:
>
> http://inmateloc.bop.gov/
>
> Dead. Is it in the internet archive?
>
> Why no designation of state or Federal?
>
> Why is the word servlet chopped off even
> way back in 2004?
>
>
> How could this LINK have EVER worked with
> http in the middle and servlet chopped off?
>
> You said people could check for themselves.
>
>
>
> I never claimed that he wasn't convicted.
> I claimed you stalked him for over 10 years
> and haven't posted online verifiable PROOF
> that he was CONVICTED.
>
> anonymous henchmen posted it as if proof
> of indictment was proof of conviction.
>
> Did you refer to 43481-061 in any other posts online?
>
>
SeanSpade
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:17:04 -0800 (PST), Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [Snips for brevity]
>
> >> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's Troy
> >> > > residence on June 20.
> >> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>
> >> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>
> >X > And the idiot once again posts something
> >X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>
> >So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
> >know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>
> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not
> allow for the copying of the entire work.
> copyright law you will find this.
> Yes, you think you're exempt from all criminal and civil law.
> Your record, in addition to your current actions, proves this.
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> >> =A0Oh greg, here's where I posted Frohman's convict number:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.collecting.cards.non-sports/msg/85...
> >7ec195c7?hl=3Den&dmode=3Dsource
>
> >Moe > I even had a link where people can see for themselves in the
> >post.
>
> >The link is broken and as far as I can tell never did work.
>
> had no problem finding it, and two other items directly related to his
> conviction.
>
>
>
> >http://inmateloc.bop.gov/locatorservlet/gov.bop.inmatelocator.FindInm...
> >pServle> Worked for me. Granted, that was many weeks ago. It could have
> become inactive since then.
> Well, whatdayaknow? The B.O.P. site is still working.
>
>
>
> >What STATE would that be for?
>
>
> >Why no designation of state or Federal?
>
>
>
>
> >Why is there an http in the MIDDLE of that link?
>
>
> >Why is the word servlet chopped off even
> >way back in 2004?
>
> Certainly no one, not even you, has ever presented a denial.
> By YOUR standards, your lack of a denial is equal to an admission
> that the claim you know NOTHING of computing is true.
>
>
>
> >http://inmateloc.bop.gov/locatorservlet/gov.bop.inmatelocator.FindInm...
> >pServle
>
> >How could this LINK have EVER worked with
> >http in the middle and servlet chopped off?
>
>
>
>
> >You said people could check for themselves.
>
> >But that's not really true, is it Maureen?
>
> retarded due to massive use and abuse of illegal drugs can check for
> themselves. People like Gregory Scott Hanson will need A LOT of
> help."? That would have been far more accurate.
>
>
>
> >Moe > =A0So Greg, are you still claiming that he was never convicted?
>
> >I never claimed that he wasn't convicted.
>
>
> >I claimed you stalked him for over 10 years
> >and haven't posted online verifiable PROOF
> >that he was CONVICTED.
>
> anyone for over 10 years. You mentioned someone named Bobbi, but when
> asked just which of the potentially millions of people named Bobbi you
> meant, you RAN from the posts.
>
>
>
> >I saw proof he was indicted, and one of your
> >anonymous henchmen posted it as if proof
> >of indictment was proof of conviction.
>
> >Did you refer to 43481-061 in any other posts online?
>
> >Is that a state or Federal number?
>
>
>
>
> >You DO know that an indictment is NOT a conviction, right, Moe?
>
> it is.
>
> Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
> (DOB 05/22/1959)
> CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
> Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
> OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
> Comments: CT 2 SPEED
> Disposition Status
> GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
>
> "That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
> Greg Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, or proving he's so
> stupid he thinks I'm Asian.
>
> Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
> drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
> alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
>
> Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
>
> "My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
> in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
> the Child Abuse registry, for example."
> -- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
>
> " ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
> minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
> minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
> the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
> address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
>
> Path:
> news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups:
> misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
>
> With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
> into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
> videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
> was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
> water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
> a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
> gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
> were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
> She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
> prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
>
> "Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
> triumphantly.
>
> --a true story
SeanSpade
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy
> >>>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's
> >>>>> > > Troy
> >>>>> > > residence on June 20.
> >>>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>
> >>>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>
> >>>>X > And the idiot once again posts something
> >>>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>
> >>>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
> >>>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>
> >>> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously.
> >>> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not
> >>> allow for the copying of the entire work.
>
> >>"Betamax"
> >>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
>
>
> You can't be THAT stupid. Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
>
> http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_....
>
> READ you illiterate ASSHOLE;
>
> "Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of
> does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use."
>
>
> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&inv...
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technology/articles/groksterprim...
>
> Now what IDIOTIC comeback can we expect from our resident IDIOT POLACK????
Greegor
and Nov 30 that I posted the link you reposted?
It's STILL not definitive, but the indictment makes
it reasonable to believe the incarceration was
a result of copyright violation or something related to it.
Somebody named TOP posted a link
to a story about indictment, and made
stupid hostile comments as if that proves
conviction, which of course it does NOT.
Indictment and conviction are NOT the same thing.
Moe ran a friggin' CAMPAIGN of stalking and
harassment of the poor bastard for a DECADE,
yet somehow did NOT post actual PROOF!
It's STILL not definitive of that being what
he was convicted for, just a reasonable conclusion.
http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&FirstName=glen&LastName=frohman
Kent Wills
wrote:
>SeanSpade: Did you miss that between Nov 6th
>and Nov 30 that I posted the link you reposted?
>
>It's STILL not definitive, but the indictment makes
>it reasonable to believe the incarceration was
>a result of copyright violation or something related to it.
Are you so stoned you think people go to federal prison for a
civil crime? Really?
He went due to committing fraud, stupid.
>
>Somebody named TOP posted a link
>to a story about indictment, and made
>stupid hostile comments as if that proves
>conviction, which of course it does NOT.
>
>Indictment and conviction are NOT the same thing.
A point no one has disputed.
You often like to dwell on points no one argues. Why is that?
>
>Moe ran a friggin' CAMPAIGN of stalking and
>harassment of the poor bastard for a DECADE,
>yet somehow did NOT post actual PROOF!
First, she hadn't mentioned his name. You are the one who became
obsessed with the man.
Second, she did post proof. When Moe and I both posted the proof
that she posted the proof, you RAN from the thread like the lying
loser you were, are and will forever be.
Pooooor widdle Gweggie.
>
>It's STILL not definitive of that being what
>he was convicted for, just a reasonable conclusion.
If you would get off the illegal drugs you admit you use and
abuse, you might be able to understand the simpler things in life.
Like how to review proof when it's set before you.
>
>http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&FirstName=glen&LastName=frohman
>
>GLEN FROHMAN 43481-061 49-White-M 02-23-2004 RELEASED
A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott Hanson
(either directly or through the same standards he DEMANDS be held to
others):
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, by attacking my
first wife (deceased).
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
triumphantly.
--a true story
As of Sunday, Nov. 29, 2009:
Financials
Title: STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREG SCOTT
Case: 06571 AGCR015216 (LINN)
Citation Number:
Summary Orig Paid Due
COSTS 9200.00 850.00 8350.00
FINE 500.00 500.00 0.00
SURCHARGE 150.00 150.00 0.00
RESTITUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00
OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00
$9850.00 $1500.00 $8350.00
Yes, Greg still owes over $8000.00 related to his convictions for
BEATING his ex-wife.
Greegor
G > and Nov 30 that I posted the link you reposted?
G >
G > It's STILL not definitive, but the indictment makes
G > it reasonable to believe the incarceration was
G > a result of copyright violation or something related to it.
KBW > Are you so stoned you think people go to
KBW > federal prison for a civil crime? Really?
KBW > He went due to committing fraud, stupid.
Got proof?
The original claim was that he was convicted of
the crime of copyright violation.
Now you're claiming he was imprisoned for FRAUD.
[ Link to news story does not work, ]
Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
Kent, WHY did you say he was convicted of FRAUD?
Got proof of that?
G > Somebody named TOP posted a link
G > to a story about indictment, and made
G > stupid hostile comments as if that proves
G > conviction, which of course it does NOT.
G >
G > Indictment and conviction are NOT the same thing.
KBW > A point no one has disputed.
KBW > You often like to dwell on points no one argues.
KBW > Why is that?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/de81a571c5688686
Going for plausible deniability again, Hanson?
Why did you avoid the archives? Searching on google news withOUT
going
to the year, or withOUT using the archives, returns only recent news.
It
says so on the google news search page.
Of course you innocently missed that, right?
But then you have never failed to use archives before to stalk
others.
Mistake or lie. You tell us.
Care to explain all your lies about Frohman, or did you just ""not
know?"" LOL
TOP (The Other Pangborn)
G > Moe ran a friggin' CAMPAIGN of stalking and
G > harassment of the poor bastard for a DECADE,
G > yet somehow did NOT post actual PROOF!
KBW > First, she hadn't mentioned his name.
Kent, You are a retard in any language.
KBW > You are the one who became
KBW > obsessed with the man.
I just challenged her story, since she
ran a campaign of harassment against
him for a DECADE without posting proof
that he was actually convicted
of what she said.
KBW > Second, she did post proof.
Got a LINK? What date?
KBW > When Moe and I both posted the
KBW > proof that she posted the proof,
KBW > you RAN from the thread like the
KBW > lying loser you were, are and will
KBW > forever be. Pooooor widdle Gweggie.
G > It's STILL not definitive of that being
G > what he was convicted for, just a
G > reasonable conclusion.
KBW > If you would get off the illegal drugs
KBW > you admit you use and abuse, you
KBW > might be able to understand the
KBW > simpler things in life.
KBW > Like how to review proof when it's set before you.
Like proof Glen was convicted of FRAUD?
Set it before me, please.
womanGoddess
> SeanSpade: Did you miss that between Nov 6th
> and Nov 30 that I posted the link you reposted?
>
> It's STILL not definitive, but the indictment makes
> it reasonable to believe the incarceration was
> a result of copyright violation or something related to it.
>
> Somebody named TOP posted a link
> to a story about indictment, and made
> stupid hostile comments as if that proves
> conviction, which of course it does NOT.
>
> Indictment and conviction are NOT the same thing.
>
> Moe ran a friggin' CAMPAIGN of stalking and
> harassment of the poor bastard for a DECADE,
> yet somehow did NOT post actual PROOF!
>
> It's STILL not definitive of that being what
> he was convicted for, just a reasonable conclusion.
>
>
> GLEN FROHMAN 43481-061 49-White-M 02-23-2004 RELEASED
(( rolls eyes)) Doing your usual ignore the facts act Greg?
Are you going to deny now POSTING a copyrighted article of his
arrest, complete with details at that time?
Does your pretended ignorance of the facts include not reading the
article before you posted it?
Or are you now showing your mental deficiency?
womanGoddess
> G > SeanSpade: Did you miss that between Nov 6th
> G > and Nov 30 that I posted the link you reposted?
> G >
> G > It's STILL not definitive, but the indictment makes
> G > it reasonable to believe the incarceration was
> G > a result of copyright violation or something related to it.
>
> KBW > Are you so stoned you think people go to
> KBW > federal prison for a civil crime? Really?
> KBW > He went due to committing fraud, stupid.
>
> Got proof?
> The original claim was that he was convicted of
> the crime of copyright violation.
> Now you're claiming he was imprisoned for FRAUD.
I am reluctant to say this but Kent, you are incorrect. Frohman was
convicted of two counts of conspiracy to violate copyright laws, not
fraud. He might have been convicted of fraud if someone within the
statue of limitations had reported him for his SSI "disability" act he
did where he claimed he was mentally retarded.
>
> [ Link to news story does not work, ]
>
(( copyrighted article snipped))
>
> Kent, WHY did you say he was convicted of FRAUD?
> Got proof of that?
My guess is that Kent had a momentary brain fart and confused your
snotty master Kennie with Frohman. While I could have prosecuted the
EBay thief for fraud considering the EBay auction he ripped me off
on, the end result of my battle with Frohman was more satisfying.
>
> G > Somebody named TOP posted a link
> G > to a story about indictment, and made
> G > stupid hostile comments as if that proves
> G > conviction, which of course it does NOT.
> G >
> G > Indictment and conviction are NOT the same thing.
>
> KBW > A point no one has disputed.
> KBW > You often like to dwell on points no one argues.
> KBW > Why is that?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> Going for plausible deniability again, Hanson?
>
> Why did you avoid the archives? Searching on google news withOUT
> going
> to the year, or withOUT using the archives, returns only recent news.
> It
> says so on the google news search page.
Exactly. I even in my instructions said click " all".
>
> Of course you innocently missed that, right?
Nothing about Gaggie is innocent.
>
> But then you have never failed to use archives before to stalk
> others.
> Mistake or lie. You tell us.
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://news.google.com/archivesearch...
>
> Care to explain all your lies about Frohman, or did you just ""not
> know?"" LOL
>
> TOP (The Other Pangborn)
>
> G > Moe ran a friggin' CAMPAIGN of stalking and
> G > harassment of the poor bastard for a DECADE,
> G > yet somehow did NOT post actual PROOF!
>
> KBW > First, she hadn't mentioned his name.
>
> Kent, You are a retard in any language.
You could prove your claim by showing the date of my first post in
alt SCPS where I mentioned Frohman's name and showing the first post
where YOU mentioned his name Greg.
But that would show that you posted his full name first.
>
> KBW > You are the one who became
> KBW > obsessed with the man.
>
> I just challenged her story, since she
> ran a campaign of harassment against
> him for a DECADE without posting proof
> that he was actually convicted
> of what she said.
And when I did show proof, you ran like the coward you are and now
you want to return to your denial act, even when you yourself posted
some of the proof.
More proof of your habitual lying ans stupidity.
>
> KBW > Second, she did post proof.
>
> Got a LINK? What date?
((rolls eyes)) Are you trying to deny I ever posted it?
Since I am one of your cyberstalking targets, how could you miss one
of my regular usenet posts? Particularly since I don't post every day.
Having memory retention problems Greg, or is this part of your "
game"?
>
> KBW > When Moe and I both posted the
> KBW > proof that she posted the proof,
> KBW > you RAN from the thread like the
> KBW > lying loser you were, are and will
> KBW > forever be. Pooooor widdle Gweggie.
>
> G > It's STILL not definitive of that being
> G > what he was convicted for, just a
> G > reasonable conclusion.
>
> KBW > If you would get off the illegal drugs
> KBW > you admit you use and abuse, you
> KBW > might be able to understand the
> KBW > simpler things in life.
> KBW > Like how to review proof when it's set before you.
>
Greegor
Kent Wills
wrote:
>G > SeanSpade: �Did you miss that between Nov 6th
>G > and Nov 30 that I posted the link you reposted?
>G >
>G > It's STILL not definitive, but the indictment makes
>G > it reasonable to believe the incarceration was
>G > a result of copyright violation or something related to it.
>
>KBW > Are you so stoned you think people go to
>KBW > federal prison for a civil crime? � Really?
>KBW >�He went due to committing fraud, stupid.
>
>Got proof?
Yes.
>The original claim was that he was convicted of
>the crime of copyright violation.
It was, and he was.
>Now you're claiming he was imprisoned for FRAUD.
I did, and he was.
[Snip of Greg's proof that his drug induced mental defects cause him
to believe he's exempt from any and all laws]
>
>Kent, WHY did you say he was convicted of FRAUD?
Because he was, dullard.
Did you even read the information Moe linked to?
>Got proof of that?
Yes.
>
>G > Somebody named TOP posted a link
>G > to a story about indictment, and made
>G > stupid hostile comments as if that proves
>G > conviction, which of course it does NOT.
>G >
>G > Indictment and conviction are NOT the same thing.
>
>KBW > A point no one has disputed.
>KBW > You often like to dwell on points no one argues.
>KBW >�Why is that?
>
You've still not answered the question you quote.
>
>
>G > Moe ran a friggin' CAMPAIGN of stalking and
>G > harassment of the poor bastard for a DECADE,
>G > yet somehow did NOT post actual PROOF!
>
>KBW > First, she hadn't mentioned his name.
>
>Kent, You are a retard in any language.
>
You're the one who thinks different comments from different
thread somehow all fit together as if they were all a part of one
post.
>KBW >�You are the one who became
>KBW > obsessed with the man.
>
>I just challenged her story, since she
>ran a campaign of harassment against
>him for a DECADE without posting proof
>that he was actually convicted
>of what she said.
Why do you LIE even after your lie has been exposed? Since Moe
wasn't mentioning the guy, and hadn't for numerous years, there can be
no campaign of harassment. Not outside your drug addled mind.
>
>KBW > Second, she did post proof.
>
>Got a LINK? What date?
I can give you both as soon as you post the picture of David
dressed as a Nazi and the picture of me on a pony, or admit you've
been lying about the existence of both from the begriming.
Whereas you KNOW this is the requirement for you to get any links
from me, I must ask, *again*, why were you compelled to post as if you
weren't aware?
>
>KBW > When Moe and I both posted the
>KBW > proof that she posted the proof,
>KBW > you RAN from the thread like the
>KBW > lying loser you were, are and will
>KBW > forever be. Pooooor widdle Gweggie.
>
>G > It's STILL not definitive of that being
>G > what he was convicted for, just a
>G > reasonable conclusion.
>
>KBW > If you would get off the illegal drugs
>KBW > you admit you use and abuse, you
>KBW > might be able to understand the
>KBW > simpler things in life.
>KBW > Like how to review proof when it's set before you.
>
>Like proof Glen was convicted of FRAUD?
>Set it before me, please.
You know the requirement. Once you've met the conditions, which
should be easy for you, I'll do so.
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 2, 8:27�am, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> G > SeanSpade: �Did you miss that between Nov 6th
>> G > and Nov 30 that I posted the link you reposted?
>> G >
>> G > It's STILL not definitive, but the indictment makes
>> G > it reasonable to believe the incarceration was
>> G > a result of copyright violation or something related to it.
>>
>> KBW > Are you so stoned you think people go to
>> KBW > federal prison for a civil crime? � Really?
>> KBW >�He went due to committing fraud, stupid.
>>
>> Got proof?
>> The original claim was that he was convicted of
>> the crime of copyright violation.
>> Now you're claiming he was imprisoned for FRAUD.
>
> I am reluctant to say this but Kent, you are incorrect.
It's not the first time. I dare say it won't be the last.
While certainly not my intent, this does offer me yet another
chance to point out how I am able to admit my errors while Greg's drug
induced LIES force him to RUN when exposed.
Greg is none too bright. Simple instructions confuse him.
>>
>> Of course you innocently missed that, right?
>
> Nothing about Gaggie is innocent.
>
>>
>> But then you have never failed to use archives before to stalk
>> others.
>> Mistake or lie. You tell us.
>>
>> http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://news.google.com/archivesearch...
>>
>> Care to explain all your lies about Frohman, or did you just ""not
>> know?"" �LOL
>>
>> TOP (The Other Pangborn)
>>
>> G > Moe ran a friggin' CAMPAIGN of stalking and
>> G > harassment of the poor bastard for a DECADE,
>> G > yet somehow did NOT post actual PROOF!
>>
>> KBW > First, she hadn't mentioned his name.
>>
>> Kent, You are a retard in any language.
>
> You could prove your claim by showing the date of my first post in
>alt SCPS where I mentioned Frohman's name and showing the first post
>where YOU mentioned his name Greg.
>
> But that would show that you posted his full name first.
BURN!
Of course, I meant in regards to current groups. After several
years of knowing you, I wasn't aware the man existed until Greg was
compelled to PROVE he's obsessed with Glen.
>
>>
>> KBW >�You are the one who became
>> KBW > obsessed with the man.
>>
>> I just challenged her story, since she
>> ran a campaign of harassment against
>> him for a DECADE without posting proof
>> that he was actually convicted
>> of what she said.
>
> And when I did show proof, you ran like the coward you are and now
>you want to return to your denial act, even when you yourself posted
>some of the proof.
>
> More proof of your habitual lying ans stupidity.
Greg is so desperate to distract from the truth, he'll try to
pretend the truth wasn't presented.
When I went into some detail about how he violated copyright law,
he ran away. More than a month after I proved him wrong, he replied
to a part of the thread asking if the cat had my tongue. The
dishonest implication Greg was trying to present was that I had ran
from the discussion.
>
>>
>> KBW > Second, she did post proof.
>>
>> Got a LINK? �What date?
>
>((rolls eyes)) Are you trying to deny I ever posted it?
In a way, he is.
>
>Since I am one of your cyberstalking targets, how could you miss one
>of my regular usenet posts? Particularly since I don't post every day.
>
I don't think he's claimed to read everything you've written. He
has made such a claim regarding me, which I find odd, since some of
the posts were sent with X-No-Archive :Yes.
> Having memory retention problems Greg, or is this part of your "
>game"?
It's no game. Greg is as mentally retarded as he presents
on-line.
womanGoddess
Greegor
of the FAIR USE exception to the copyright
law is. Can you guess why copyright holders
do not like the full extent of the FAIR USE
exception?
Did you think that just because every published
news report has a very restrictive copyright claim
at the bottom that this was absolute and without
an exception?
Did you think that said publishers would be
anxious to ANNOUNCE these exceptions??
M
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:17:04 -0800 (PST), Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [Snips for brevity]
>
> >> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's Troy
> >> > > residence on June 20.
> >> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>
> >> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>
> >X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>
> >So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
> >know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>
> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously.
> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not
> allow for the copying of the entire work.
> (DOB 05/22/1959)
> CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
> Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
> OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
> Comments: CT 2 SPEED
> Disposition Status
> GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
>
> "That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
> stupid he thinks I'm Asian.
>
> Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
> drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
> alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
>
> Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
>
> "My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
> in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
> the Child Abuse registry, for example."
> Message-ID: <35120b16.0401111639.6825f...@posting.google.com>
>
> minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
> minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
> the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
> address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
> April 2000, Gregory Hansonhttp://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
>
> Path:
> From: Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups:
> misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
Kent Wills
wrote:
>Please explain what the stated purpose
>of the FAIR USE exception to the copyright
>law is.
How many times does your drug addled mind need to be given the
same information?
>Can you guess why copyright holders
>do not like the full extent of the FAIR USE
>exception?
I wasn't aware they didn't.
>
>Did you think that just because every published
>news report has a very restrictive copyright claim
>at the bottom that this was absolute and without
>an exception?
Fair use is an exception, you drug addicted fool.
>
>Did you think that said publishers would be
>anxious to ANNOUNCE these exceptions??
They don't need to be. Most people are aware of them, and all
limitations that come with them.
A few, like you, hold the delusion they are not bound by such
laws. They, like you, are wrong.
A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott Hanson
(either directly or through the same standards he DEMANDS be held to
others):
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, by attacking my
first wife (deceased).
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
triumphantly.
--a true story
Greegor
KBW > since you didn't post anything in the way of a reply.
LOL
M
KBW > Second, she did post proof.
Got a LINK? What date?
KBW > When Moe and I both posted the
KBW > proof that she posted the proof,
> >Moe ran a friggin' CAMPAIGN of stalking and
> >harassment of the poor bastard for a DECADE,
> >yet somehow did NOT post actual PROOF!
>
> First, she hadn't mentioned his name. You are the one who became
> obsessed with the man.
> Second, she did post proof. When Moe and I both posted the proof
> that she posted the proof, you RAN from the thread like the lying
> loser you were, are and will forever be.
> Pooooor widdle Gweggie.
>
>
>
> >It's STILL not definitive of that being what
> >he was convicted for, just a reasonable conclusion.
>
> If you would get off the illegal drugs you admit you use and
> abuse, you might be able to understand the simpler things in life.
> Like how to review proof when it's set before you.
>
>
>
> >http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&F...
>
> >GLEN FROHMAN 43481-061 49-White-M 02-23-2004 RELEASED
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 04:59:55 -0800 (PST), Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >SeanSpade: Did you miss that between Nov 6th
> >and Nov 30 that I posted the link you reposted?
>
> >It's STILL not definitive, but the indictment makes
> >it reasonable to believe the incarceration was
> >a result of copyright violation or something related to it.
>
> Are you so stoned you think people go to federal prison for a
> civil crime? Really?
> He went due to committing fraud, stupid.
>
>
>
> >Somebody named TOP posted a link
> >to a story about indictment, and made
> >stupid hostile comments as if that proves
> >conviction, which of course it does NOT.
>
> >Indictment and conviction are NOT the same thing.
>
> A point no one has disputed.
> You often like to dwell on points no one argues. Why is that?
>
>
>
>
> A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott Hanson
> (either directly or through the same standards he DEMANDS be held to
> others):
>
> Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
> (DOB 05/22/1959)
> CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
> Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
> OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
> Comments: CT 2 SPEED
> Disposition Status
> GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
>
> "That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
> Greg Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, by attacking my
> first wife (deceased).http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
>
> Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
> drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
> alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
>
> Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
>
> "My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
> in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
> the Child Abuse registry, for example."
> -- Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser
>
> " ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
> minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
> minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
> the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
> address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
> April 2000, Gregory Hansonhttp://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
>
> Path:
> news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups:
> misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
>
>You DO realize that after all of your denials, this
>is a tacit admission that it's you in the photo, right?
Is that why you snipped the part of the post where she states it
is not?
Are you so stoned you actually think your lie might slip by
without being exposed as the drug induced lie it is?
Greegor
G > Got a LINK? What date?
KBW > When Moe and I both posted the
KBW > proof that she posted the proof,
Why talk about proof that she posted the proof?
Post a LINK, Kent!
[...]
G > You DO realize that after all of your denials, this
G > is a tacit admission that it's you in the photo, right?
M > Is that why you snipped the part of the post
M > where she states it is not?
M > Are you so stoned you actually think your lie
M > might slip by without being exposed as the
M > drug induced lie it is?
Kent, You are an idiot.
How long did you think your socks
would fool anybody?
A. Calling opponent drunk
B. Calling opponent drugged
C. Calling opponent mentally ill
D. Opponent already conceded whatever Kent says
Come up with some more Polish Jihadh strategy, Kent!
Ask Stashu Ulanowski for help.
Kent Wills
>On Dec 2, 5:21�am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>KBW > Second, she did post proof.
>
>
>Got a LINK? What date?
>
>
[...]
I'll bite. What does your C&P of different posts mean?
--
Count your blessings by thinking of those whom you love.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>M > Is that why you snipped the part of the post
>M > where she states it is not?
>M > Are you so stoned you actually think your lie
>M > might slip by without being exposed as the
>M > drug induced lie it is?
>
>Kent, You are an idiot.
>
How so?
>How long did you think your socks
>would fool anybody?
So now your drug addled mind forces you to claim I live in
Pennsylvania?
>
>A. Calling opponent drunk
>B. Calling opponent drugged
>C. Calling opponent mentally ill
>D. Opponent already conceded whatever Kent says
Free clue, stupid: M posted a C&P of various posts.
Another free clue, druggie: I don't live in Pennsylvania. Note
the IP for the person posting as "M".
IP address: 128.147.28.1
IP country code: US
IP address country: United States
IP address state: Pennsylvania
IP address city: Pittsburgh
IP postcode: 15222
IP address latitude: 40.4495
IP address longitude: -79.9880
ISP of this IP : University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Organization: University of Pittsburgh Medical Center
Host of this IP: : inetnar10x.ft28.upmc.edu
Local time in United States: 2009-12-05 04:01
Now I can point out how the use and abuse of illegal drugs you
admit has forced you to believe I live in Pittsburgh.
You really know how to PROVE your drug use has made you mentally
retarded. I hardly have to do anything beyond making note of the
PROOF you present.
>
>Come up with some more Polish Jihadh strategy, Kent!
You're so stoned you think someone doing a copy and past of one
of my posts means I'm the one posting.
Get off the drugs, Greg.
>
>Ask Stashu Ulanowski for help.
If I knew such a person, I could at least do so. Since I've
never met anyone by that name, I can't.
A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott "Piggly
Wiggly" Hanson (either directly or through the same standards he
DEMANDS be held to others):
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, by
attacking my first wife (deceased).
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child abuser:
"Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child
abuser
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
--a true story
Yes, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson still owes over
SeanSpade
> SeanSpade: Did you miss that between Nov 6th
> and Nov 30 that I posted the link you reposted?
Can someone tell me where Glen Frohman is or not? Does he have any
aliases? ANYTHING? I NEED TO FIND THE GUY!!!!
Jesus fuck, you would think SOMEONE would be able to help me find this
guy.
I didn't buy any cards, and I do not need any money from him, I JUST
NEED TO TALK TO THE GUY!!!
SeanSpade
Frohman. These usenet groups give me a headache.
My name is Sean, and my email is Sean...@gmail.com
I want to talk to someone in this thread, please god.
womanGoddess
> On Dec 1 2009, 7:59 am, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > SeanSpade: Did you miss that between Nov 6th
> > and Nov 30 that I posted the link you reposted?
>
> Can someone tell me where Glen Frohman is or not? Does he have any
> aliases? ANYTHING? I NEED TO FIND THE GUY!!!!
Try a people search engine. Glen Frohman is not a common name.
>
> Jesus fuck, you would think SOMEONE would be able to help me find this
> guy.
Watch your language.
>
> I didn't buy any cards, and I do not need any money from him, I JUST
> NEED TO TALK TO THE GUY!!!
Really? Why? The guy's a scum.
BTW if you are really wanting to find him, try looking through posts
by Greegor, who was dumb enough to post the copyrighted article.
AAMOF you can use Google news to search for his name and you will get
a really good idea what state he lives in.
After all that if you can't find his current address, you are
dumber than greegor aka Greg Hanson.
womanGoddess
> Someone please God send me a link to something related to Glen
> Frohman. These usenet groups give me a headache.
(( rolls eyes)) Hire someone who can do it then.
>
> My name is Sean, and my email is SeanSp...@gmail.com
>
> I want to talk to someone in this thread, please god.
I know why you CLAIM you want to contact Frohman. Your little story
to me raised my suspicions. I felt like I was " being played" by you.
Listen, whomever you REALLY are, you can find his current address and
phone number easily, Try a people search engine. His name is hardly
commonly used.
If you are legit, you can add yourself to the people whom he has
abused on AOL who have phoned him with " harrassing" calls.
If you have AOL go to one of the chat rooms he frequents, such as the
oldies rock or the antiques collectibles. He often used a screen name
with the word darth in it.
womanGoddess
> Frohman. These usenet groups give me a headache.
>
>
> I want to talk to someone in this thread, please god.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/37e7fd1f5c04b708?hl=en&dmode=source
womanGoddess
>
> > SeanSpade: Did you miss that between Nov 6th
> > and Nov 30 that I posted the link you reposted?
>
> Can someone tell me where Glen Frohman is or not? Does he have any
> aliases? ANYTHING? I NEED TO FIND THE GUY!!!!
>
> Jesus fuck, you would think SOMEONE would be able to help me find this
> guy.
Why did you say "Jesus fuck" in this post and " please god" ( small
"g") in the next post?
Seems to me you committed blasphemy and pretended to be devout at the
same time.
Right Greg?
Kent Wills
Greg should be able to tell you. Greg has claimed to have been
obsessed with the man for 10 years.
--a true story
"I am now a "founded" child abuser for making a
7 year old take a fast cold shower."
-- Gregory Scot "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson bragging in MID
<cu6H6.14493$3c6.3...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com>
In Message-ID:
<c7be6a38-8d1d-4c0a...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson admitted that by his standards,
he RAPED his ex-wife. The same ex-wife he was twice convicted for
BEATING.
In Message-ID:
<8db2eada-0546-4c1a...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson admits that his use and abuse of
illegal drugs forced him to LIE about the existence of certain
photographs.