Re: Ted Kaldis offers more evidence that he's mentally ill
tjab
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Our favorite felon,
As opposed to our favorite convicted felon?
>Theodore A Kaldis, posted a link to a picture of
>a road way on his K00K blog. This alone would mean nothing. The
>directions he gives in addition to the picture says A LOT!
>
>
>Here's a link to the screen cap of the picture:
. . .
>Here's the post on the K00K blog where he posts directions to Ken's
>home.
. . .
So what's the concern? That someone might use those directions to
burglarize Ken's garage? (Just kidding. Ted, you really do have a
problem.)
Wayne Delia
> Our favorite felon, Theodore A Kaldis, posted a link to a picture of
> a road way on his K00K blog. This alone would mean nothing. The
> directions he gives in addition to the picture says A LOT!
>
> Here's a link to the screen cap of the picture:
>
>
> Here's the post on the K00K blog where he posts directions to Ken's
> home.
>
>
> I've censored some of the directions. Yes, anyone can get
> them via the K00K blog, but you'll need to spend time exposing
> yourself to Ted's mental illness in order to get them. I'm not going
> to make it any easier for you readers than I have to.
Things haven't been going too well for Ted Kaldis lately.
He and Patty are out of money. He's been humiliated on Usenet. His
brother-in-law is still in jail, awaiting a retrial for murder. The
original lawyer, Mark Geragos, has dropped the case, after Ted and Patty
paid out probably hundreds of thousands of dollars, and it was mainly
Ted's fault when he insisted Geragos withheld the "H-bomb class
evidence" in the first trial. The replacement lawyer, a colleague of
Geragos, is taking the case at the public defender's pay scale, and his
effort will be mailed in if the case goes sour in the least. All of that
pales in importance to the biggest, most urgent crisis he currently
faces: the local grocery store is out of the discount bulk bags of cookies.
WMD
• UltraMan •
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Our favorite felon, Theodore A Kaldis,
I'm no felon, you veritable felon. Your FALSE assertion here represents
actionable libel.
> posted a link to a picture of a road way on his K00K blog.
What "kook" blog? The link to the comment section is here:
<http://www.haloscan.com/comments/caseinsider/119357971366722319/>
> This alone would mean nothing.
This alone DOES mean nothing, except to one who might happen to recognise
this particular location. To everyone else, it is meaningless.
> The directions he gives in addition to the picture says A LOT!
Like what? If you don't know the location, the directions don't tell you
anything.
> Here's a link to the screen cap of the picture:
> http://www.geocities.com/compuelf/stalker_ted_01.jpg
Here's a link to the original webpage:
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/Roadway.htm>
> Here's the post on the K00K blog where he posts directions to Ken's home.
Okay, now YOU'VE just told everyone what the directions are to. But then
again, the particular exit has not been identified, so without that, Ken is
still somewhat "safe". (Though I was EASILY able to find out this location
-- EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NEVER BEEN THERE -- so anyone else who is determined
could do so without terribly much effort.)
> http://www.geocities.com/compuelf/stalker_ted_02.jpg
> I've censored some of the directions.
Here is what I originally wrote:
Ken: Do you recognise this highway exit?:
http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/Roadway.htm
If I were to make the sharp hairpin turn to the right at the end of
the ramp seen here, follow the road down a ways, and take the first
right as the road curves around to the left, then follow that road
and take the third right, and then turn into the first parking lot
on the right, what would I find in [I believe it's] the 2nd building
on the right?
> [...]
> Theodore A. Kaldis admits to stalking my wife (ANOTHER felony):
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/f1a183a485d58c5d
You don't have a wife, you LIAR.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kal...@worldnet.att.net
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Kent Wills wrote:
>> Here's the post on the K00K blog where he posts directions to Ken's home.
> [...]
> So what's the concern? That someone might use those directions to
> burglarize Ken's garage? (Just kidding. Ted, you really do have a
> problem.)
What "problem"? I just happened to be driving by, so I snapped a picture.
But I couldn't be bothered to get off the freeway.
Theodore A. Kaldis
> [B.S.]
Wayne must be hitting the bottle again.
Wayne Delia
> Wayne Delia wrote:
>
>> [B.S.]
>
> Wayne must be hitting the bottle again.
Not lately - but unlike you, I can afford to buy a round.
WMD
Theodore A. Kaldis
> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>> Wayne Delia wrote:
>>> [B.S.]
>> Wayne must be hitting the bottle again.
> Not lately
I'm not so sure.
> - but unlike you, I can afford to buy a round.
Oh, you think? What do you know about me? (As for example, where am I
today?)
[BTW, I was not PO'd, I was simply amused (by your cluelessness).]
forevernitefan
Kent Wills wrote:
> Our favorite felon, Theodore A Kaldis, posted a link to a picture of
> a road way on his K00K blog. This alone would mean nothing. The
> directions he gives in addition to the picture says A LOT!
>
>
>
> http://www.geocities.com/compuelf/stalker_ted_01.jpg
>
>
> home.
>
>
> I've censored some of the directions. Yes, anyone can get
> them via the K00K blog, but you'll need to spend time exposing
> yourself to Ted's mental illness in order to get them. I'm not going
> to make it any easier for you readers than I have to.
>
> Kent
>
> Theodore A. Kaldis admits to stalking my wife (ANOTHER felony):
> http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/f1a183a485d58c5d
Cripes, that is too much, even for Teddie. What the hell was he
THINKING? What's the point of making directions to Kent's home unless
Teddie wanted someone else to DO something to Kent? Worse still, he
still has his brother-in-law's frigging MURDER trial coming up and
something like THAT could seriously end up biting him on his big fat
ass.
Teddie you idiot. Get help for your OCD or one of these days you are
going to end up dead from a gunshot would, jackass.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
http://www.boblarsonfanclub.tk/ .
forevernitefan
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> Kent Wills wrote:
>
> > Our favorite felon, Theodore A Kaldis,
>
> I'm no felon, you veritable felon. Your FALSE assertion here represents
> actionable libel.
Then sue, fatass. You know damn well what the felon reference is
about. When you were in Australia BY YOUR ONW ADMISSION you and your
buddies particiaped in bashing gays with a tyre iron you OWNED you
gave one of your buddies straight out of the trunk of your car, and
when the police arrived, you ran like a coward Not to mention your
increasingly dangerous OCD involving Ken Smith. You aren't a CONVICTED
felon, yet, but you have commited felonies, criminal acts...
>
> > posted a link to a picture of a road way on his K00K blog.
>
> What "kook" blog? The link to the comment section is here:
>
> <http://www.haloscan.com/comments/caseinsider/119357971366722319/>
>
> > This alone would mean nothing.
You and Patty moderate your crappy little blog, You both have the
judgment to allow or NOT allow such a thing to be posted. The fact
that it is stilll there means you WANT it there, while posts from
people like me and Wayne and a few others are curiously cenosred out
as soon as you find them.
Do you remember the case a few years ago were a " pro-life" web site
published the names, faces and addresses of " abortion providers" and
because of them at least one person was murdered? The web site was
blatantly calling for people to be murdered and the news of the murder
and its connection to the web site seriously damaged the " pro-lifers"
credibility to the public.
Tell us Teddie, what WAS your reason for posting that on your blog?
Any explanation at all?
>
> This alone DOES mean nothing, except to one who might happen to recognise
> this particular location. To everyone else, it is meaningless.
>
> > The directions he gives in addition to the picture says A LOT!
Agreed, It is too specific and we know you have OCD. Teddie, get help
before you end up in a pool of your own blood.
>
> Like what? If you don't know the location, the directions don't tell you
> anything.
>
> > Here's a link to the screen cap of the picture:
>
> > http://www.geocities.com/compuelf/stalker_ted_01.jpg
>
> Here's a link to the original webpage:
>
> <http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/Roadway.htm>
>
> > Here's the post on the K00K blog where he posts directions to Ken's home.
>
> Okay, now YOU'VE just told everyone what the directions are to. But then
> again, the particular exit has not been identified, so without that, Ken is
> still somewhat "safe".
Why post it at all? Why put quotes around the word" Safe" ? Doing so
indicates what your intentions are.
(Though I was EASILY able to find out this location
> -- EVEN THOUGH I HAVE NEVER BEEN THERE -- so anyone else who is determined
> could do so without terribly much effort.)]
So you claim you have never been there. I do think there was a few
years ago where you pulled a similar real life stalking attempt in
Australia involving an assocate of Ken Smith. Last I heard the
stalking you do is a real probem as it can lead up to volence, even
death. You are oding you same damn hint and inference crap you pull to
give the impression you wll later claim to vehemently deny. The target
is Ken Smith and you damn well know it. Ken has sia din the pastthat
he knows what you are doing and has taken precautions to protect
himself and his wife.
Teddie get psych help for your OCD before you end up in the gutter
with your blood flowing down the sewer and the coroner bagging your
corpse.
>
> > http://www.geocities.com/compuelf/stalker_ted_02.jpg
>
> > I've censored some of the directions.
>
> Here is what I originally wrote:
>
> Ken: Do you recognise this highway exit?:
>
> http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/Roadway.htm
>
> If I were to make the sharp hairpin turn to the right at the end of
> the ramp seen here, follow the road down a ways, and take the first
> right as the road curves around to the left, then follow that road
> and take the third right, and then turn into the first parking lot
> on the right, what would I find in [I believe it's] the 2nd building
> on the right?
So if someone posted directions to YOUR home ( actually your sister's)
would that be okay? I mean considering your racist, sexist and
homophobic comments in the past surely SOMEONE would love to make a
personal visit. You know the Golden Rule, Teddie, Do unto others as
you would have them do unto you.
>
> > [...]
>
> > Theodore A. Kaldis admits to stalking my wife (ANOTHER felony):
> > http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/f1a183a485d58c5d
>
> You don't have a wife, you LIAR.
He does have a wife, one whose training diagnosed you very well. You
OTOH have no wife and are living with your sister, and neither of you
are very well on personal grooming or a neat appearance, much less
simple household chores like doing the laundry. Needless to say
Teddie, you are pathetic.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
http://www.boblarsonfanclub.tk/ .
forevernitefan
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> Wayne Delia wrote:
>
> > Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
> >> Wayne Delia wrote:
>
> >>> [B.S.]
>
> >> Wayne must be hitting the bottle again.
>
> > Not lately
>
> I'm not so sure.
>
> > - but unlike you, I can afford to buy a round.
>
> Oh, you think? What do you know about me? (As for example, where am I
> today?)
>
We know by your own words what kind a fuckup you are, Teddie. Your
excuse that you were " just driving by" when you made a photo of Ken's
home falls flat when you live in California and he lives in Colorado.
Must be SOME " driving by". As to where you are currently who gives a
shit.
We know you and your sister are so financially bereft that you have a
court appointed attorney to defend Camoron. We know neither of you
have the common sense to show up in court in clean,decent clothes
instead of looking like trailer park trash. We know you, to use your
favorite word, prevaricate, claiming one thing then later backing away
with some lameass excuse to weasel out of the impression you were
deliberately trying to promote about you. We know you by your own
admission participated in an assault of gays even though you claim not
to have wielded your tyre iron and by your own admission when the
police arrived you didn't stay around to be held accountable We know
you profess to be Christian yet. your version of Jesus can't
distinguish the asterics in your cuss words.. We know you have a
serious case of OCD.
BTW how is your screenplay/book going on the Camoron Borowm case?
Anyone wanting to pay you for it yet? Got a new plastic shopping bag
for your manuscript yet?
> [BTW, I was not PO'd, I was simply amused (by your cluelessness).]
I was thinking you are more likely to have B.O, not P.O.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
http://www.boblarsonfanclub.tk/ .
forevernitefan
Pardon me but I should have said KEN not KENT. My mistake.
tjab
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Unless Ted lied to us. It's possible he lied about being an
>accessory before the fact in an armed robbery, but why? What possible
>gain would there be for him in admitting he committed a crime he
>didn't commit?
That'd be almost as crazy as having people you know forge a criminal
record for you on an official state website! Or claiming that you did.
Take your pick.
• UltraMan •
Felons are as Felons do ...
Kent Wills
<ul...@man.jp> wrote:
So you're admitting YOU are a felon? Interesting.
--
Kent
Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin.
I poked a badger with a spoon.
tjab
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>As I understand it, on Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:49:19 -0300, "• UltraMan •"
><ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>
>>tjab wrote:
>>> In article <9ukg73pe0qgd6rhvq...@4ax.com>,
>>> Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Unless Ted lied to us. It's possible he lied about being an
>>>> accessory before the fact in an armed robbery, but why? What
>>>> possible gain would there be for him in admitting he committed a
>>>> crime he didn't commit?
>>>
>>> That'd be almost as crazy as having people you know forge a criminal
>>> record for you on an official state website! Or claiming that you did.
>>> Take your pick.
>>
>>Felons are as Felons do ...
>>
>>
>
> So you're admitting YOU are a felon? Interesting.
Are you hallucinating again Kent?
Claiming that you colluded in forging records on a state court web site;
that could arguably be seen as admitting to a felony. But saying "Felons
are as felons do?" How do you figure?
tjab
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>As I understand it, on 19 Jun 2007 19:48:52 -0400, tj...@wam.umd.edu
>Ted to admit to committing a crime he didn't commit.
>Maybe you have a theory?
I don't doubt his claim that he supplied a tire iron to gay bashers, so
it's a moot point. I regret that he was not caught, and hope he feels
shame and contrition.
On the other hand, I do doubt your claim that you colluded in the forgery
of official state legal records. I certainly can't think of a sane reason
for you to have done so. Then again, I can't think of a sane reason for
you to claim you did if you did not.
• UltraMan •
> As I understand it, on Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:10:20 GMT, Wayne Delia
> failed once, but it may have worked other times. And it might work
> now.
Or Kent Wills could try Burglary again, or falsifying State Court Records
...
• UltraMan •
Burglary or Forgery of State Criminal Justice Records, either way Kent Wills
is a Felon.
Kent Wills
<ul...@man.jp> wrote:
I'd need to try at least once to try it again.
>or falsifying State Court Records
>...
>
I'd need to try at least once to try again.
• UltraMan •
> As I understand it, on 20 Jun 2007 09:20:05 -0400, tj...@wam.umd.edu
> (tjab) wrote:
>
>> In article <55vg731ir1uk8okgu...@4ax.com>,
>> Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> As I understand it, on Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:49:19 -0300, "• UltraMan
>>> •" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>>>
>>>> tjab wrote:
>>>>> In article <9ukg73pe0qgd6rhvq...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless Ted lied to us. It's possible he lied about being an
>>>>>> accessory before the fact in an armed robbery, but why? What
>>>>>> possible gain would there be for him in admitting he committed a
>>>>>> crime he didn't commit?
>>>>>
>>>>> That'd be almost as crazy as having people you know forge a
>>>>> criminal record for you on an official state website! Or claiming
>>>>> that you did. Take your pick.
>>>>
>>>> Felons are as Felons do ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you're admitting YOU are a felon? Interesting.
>>
>>
>> Are you hallucinating again Kent?
>
> evidence that I've ever experienced a hallucination, or admit you were
> wrong, again.
>
>
>>
>> Claiming that you colluded in forging records on a state court web
>> site; that could arguably be seen as admitting to a felony.
>
> admit it, because you fear I'll use it against you in the future. At
> least that's my guess as to your motivation.
>
>> But saying "Felons
>> are as felons do?" How do you figure?
>>
>
> that make absolutely no sense. I'm certain you've seen enough of his
> posts to recognize it.
"Let's pretend breathing is outlawed and everyone the world
over ceases inhaling and exhaling.
There will be NO change in CO2 levels since we exhale carbon
monoxide, not carbon dioxide, stupid."
- Kent Wills sigh-untist
"_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote:
When the jury finds that the person you accused
of being pregnant is in fact not pregnant, then, ipso facto,
your initial allegation/charge is false.
Kent "the imbecile" Wills responded:
If the woman in question had put on a great deal of weight and
was seen shopping in the maternity section of the store, there was
probable cause to believe she was pregnant. That she turned out not
to be pregnant doesn't mean the allegation was false.
-- Kent Wills
Kent Wills
<ul...@man.jp> wrote:
Thank you for proving, yet again, that you are a pathological
liar.
>
> "_ Prof. Jonez _" wrote:
> When the jury finds that the person you accused
>of being pregnant is in fact not pregnant, then, ipso facto,
> your initial allegation/charge is false.
>
>Kent "the imbecile" Wills responded:
>If the woman in question had put on a great deal of weight and
>was seen shopping in the maternity section of the store, there was
> probable cause to believe she was pregnant. That she turned out not
>to be pregnant doesn't mean the allegation was false.
> -- Kent Wills
>
And thank you for prove, again, that elementary concepts are
beyond you.
tjab
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>As I understand it, on 20 Jun 2007 09:29:27 -0400, tj...@wam.umd.edu
>(tjab) wrote:
>
>>In article <56vg735qehlspd0td...@4ax.com>,
>>Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>As I understand it, on 19 Jun 2007 19:48:52 -0400, tj...@wam.umd.edu
>>>(tjab) wrote:
>>>
>>>>In article <9ukg73pe0qgd6rhvq...@4ax.com>,
>>>>Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Unless Ted lied to us. It's possible he lied about being an
>>>>>accessory before the fact in an armed robbery, but why? What possible
>>>>>gain would there be for him in admitting he committed a crime he
>>>>>didn't commit?
>>>>
>>>>That'd be almost as crazy as having people you know forge a criminal
>>>>record for you on an official state website! Or claiming that you did.
>>>
>>> Depends on the motivation. I can't think of any reason for
>>>Ted to admit to committing a crime he didn't commit.
>>>Maybe you have a theory?
>>
>>
>>I don't doubt his claim that he supplied a tire iron to gay bashers, so
>>it's a moot point. I regret that he was not caught, and hope he feels
>>shame and contrition.
>>
>
>caught. The victims didn't want to press charges.
>
>>On the other hand, I do doubt your claim that you colluded in the forgery
>>of official state legal records. I certainly can't think of a sane reason
>>for you to have done so. Then again, I can't think of a sane reason for
>>you to claim you did if you did not.
>>
>
If you mean the "sting to catch a stalker" story, I wouldn't consider that
a sane reason to participate in a felony.
tjab
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>As I understand it, on 20 Jun 2007 09:20:05 -0400, tj...@wam.umd.edu
>(tjab) wrote:
>
>>Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>As I understand it, on Wed, 20 Jun 2007 00:49:19 -0300, "• UltraMan •"
>>><ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>>>
>>>>tjab wrote:
>>>>> In article <9ukg73pe0qgd6rhvq...@4ax.com>,
>>>>> Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Unless Ted lied to us. It's possible he lied about being an
>>>>>> accessory before the fact in an armed robbery, but why? What
>>>>>> possible gain would there be for him in admitting he committed a
>>>>>> crime he didn't commit?
>>>>>
>>>>> That'd be almost as crazy as having people you know forge a criminal
>>>>> record for you on an official state website! Or claiming that you did.
>>>>> Take your pick.
>>>>
>>>>Felons are as Felons do ...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> So you're admitting YOU are a felon? Interesting.
>>
>>
>>Are you hallucinating again Kent?
>
>evidence that I've ever experienced a hallucination, or admit you were
>wrong, again.
You just answered your own question. Unwittingly, perhaps, but that
seems to be the way you do most things.
>>
>>Claiming that you colluded in forging records on a state court web site;
>>that could arguably be seen as admitting to a felony.
>
> Could be, but you already know the real story. You won't
>admit it, because you fear I'll use it against you in the future. At
>least that's my guess as to your motivation.
Not a very good guess, but since it's based on a false premise, there's no
reason to expect it to be.
>>But saying "Felons
>>are as felons do?" How do you figure?
>>
>
> I took a page from Ultratwit's playbook. Throw out something
>that make absolutely no sense. I'm certain you've seen enough of his
>posts to recognize it.
>
>--
>Kent
>"The war for the future will be fought in the past."
> -- Jordan Collier
• UltraMan •
Neither would a Judge or Jury ...
Kent Wills
(tjab) wrote:
>>>On the other hand, I do doubt your claim that you colluded in the forgery
>>>of official state legal records. I certainly can't think of a sane reason
>>>for you to have done so. Then again, I can't think of a sane reason for
>>>you to claim you did if you did not.
>>>
>>
>> It's been explained to you SEVERAL times. And not just by me.
>
>If you mean the "sting to catch a stalker" story, I wouldn't consider that
>a sane reason to participate in a felony.
It's a good thing I've never participated in a felony then.
Kent Wills
<ul...@man.jp> wrote:
Then turn me in. I double dog dare ya.
--
Kent
Vegetarian: Indian word for lousy hunter.
Kent Wills
(tjab) wrote:
You were wrong again. Got it.
>
>>>
>>>Claiming that you colluded in forging records on a state court web site;
>>>that could arguably be seen as admitting to a felony.
>>
>> Could be, but you already know the real story. You won't
>>admit it, because you fear I'll use it against you in the future. At
>>least that's my guess as to your motivation.
>
>Not a very good guess, but since it's based on a false premise, there's no
>reason to expect it to be.
It's the most probable explanation, but if you want to offer
another, I'm willing to examine it.
>
>>>But saying "Felons
>>>are as felons do?" How do you figure?
>>>
>>
>> I took a page from Ultratwit's playbook. Throw out something
>>that make absolutely no sense. I'm certain you've seen enough of his
>>posts to recognize it.
>>
>>--
>>Kent
>>"The war for the future will be fought in the past."
>> -- Jordan Collier
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
--
Kent
The irony of life is that, by the time
you're old enough to know your way
around, you're not going anywhere.
• UltraMan •
As you wish ...
Kent Wills
<ul...@man.jp> wrote:
[...]
>>>> If you mean the "sting to catch a stalker" story, I wouldn't
>>>> consider that a sane reason to participate in a felony.
>>>
>>> Neither would a Judge or Jury ...
>>>
>>
>> Then turn me in. I double dog dare ya.
>
>As you wish ...
<Cue ticking clock sound FX>
• UltraMan •
> As I understand it, on Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:50:30 +0100, "• UltraMan •"
> <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>>> If you mean the "sting to catch a stalker" story, I wouldn't
>>>>> consider that a sane reason to participate in a felony.
>>>>
>>>> Neither would a Judge or Jury ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then turn me in. I double dog dare ya.
>>
>> As you wish ...
>
> <Cue ticking clock sound FX>
That's what Ted said about your threats to repudiate Geragos ...
tjab
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>As I understand it, on 21 Jun 2007 10:27:14 -0400, tj...@wam.umd.edu
>(tjab) wrote:
>
>>>>On the other hand, I do doubt your claim that you colluded in the forgery
>>>>of official state legal records. I certainly can't think of a sane reason
>>>>for you to have done so. Then again, I can't think of a sane reason for
>>>>you to claim you did if you did not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's been explained to you SEVERAL times. And not just by me.
>>
>>If you mean the "sting to catch a stalker" story, I wouldn't consider that
>>a sane reason to participate in a felony.
>
> It's a good thing I've never participated in a felony then.
For someone with nothing to hide, you sure do duck a a lot of questions.
Please indulge me. Don't tell me to search in Google, just give me direct
answers. These are pretty much yes or no questions, so direct answers will
probably take less time than saying they've 'already been addressed' in any
case.
1. Are you under the impression that it's not a felony to forge official
state records in Iowa?
2. Is the Kent Bradley Wills who appealed his conviction to the Iowa
Supreme Court you?
2a. If not, is it someone else with the same name as you?
2b. If neither, are you asserting there was no such case?
Again, simple yes or no questions, requiring you to type either
two letters or three.
Here's one that might take a little longer, but given the amount
of posting you do here, you've probably got time:
2c. If there was no such case, why is it in the law books?
tjab
Post a scan of your firearms permit!
Kent Wills
<ul...@man.jp> wrote:
There were no threats. I informed everyone AFTER I sent the
complaints.
I don't know what, if anything became of them. I can
reasonably guess, based on Ted's actions, that Geragos chewed him a
new one, but this is only a guess.
Kent Wills
(tjab) wrote:
>In article <h2rl73pci0h6u9s6l...@4ax.com>,
>Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>As I understand it, on 21 Jun 2007 10:27:14 -0400, tj...@wam.umd.edu
>>(tjab) wrote:
>>
>>>>>On the other hand, I do doubt your claim that you colluded in the forgery
>>>>>of official state legal records. I certainly can't think of a sane reason
>>>>>for you to have done so. Then again, I can't think of a sane reason for
>>>>>you to claim you did if you did not.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It's been explained to you SEVERAL times. And not just by me.
>>>
>>>If you mean the "sting to catch a stalker" story, I wouldn't consider that
>>>a sane reason to participate in a felony.
>>
>> It's a good thing I've never participated in a felony then.
>
>For someone with nothing to hide, you sure do duck a a lot of questions.
>
You didn't ask any questions. You made a statement and I
replied.
>Please indulge me. Don't tell me to search in Google, just give me direct
>answers. These are pretty much yes or no questions, so direct answers will
>probably take less time than saying they've 'already been addressed' in any
>case.
>
>1. Are you under the impression that it's not a felony to forge official
>state records in Iowa?
No.
>
>2. Is the Kent Bradley Wills who appealed his conviction to the Iowa
>Supreme Court you?
Yes and no. It's supposed to be me.
>
>2a. If not, is it someone else with the same name as you?
>
>2b. If neither, are you asserting there was no such case?
There was no such case.
>
>Again, simple yes or no questions, requiring you to type either
>two letters or three.
>
>Here's one that might take a little longer, but given the amount
>of posting you do here, you've probably got time:
>
>2c. If there was no such case, why is it in the law books?
>
I can get a copy of Black's Law and find the case listed?
Wow. I had no idea I was so important. No wonder you devote nearly
all of your Usenet time to me.
Just seeing what's so special about adding so many returns at the end
of your posts. I don't see the thrill. Must be a pre-pubescent
thing.
--
Kent
Take too many pictures, laugh too much, and love like you've never
been hurt because every sixty seconds you spend upset is a minute of
happiness you'll never get back
Kent Wills
(tjab) wrote:
[...]
>>>> Neither would a Judge or Jury ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> Then turn me in. I double dog dare ya.
>
>Post a scan of your firearms permit!
What kind of non-sequitur is that? I dare you to turn me in,
since, according to you, I've committed a felony, and you reply with
"Post a scan of your firearms permit!" ?
I don't follow the line of thought. Please enlighten me here.
tjab
Do you understand what a serious crime it would be to forge
an Iowa Supreme Court opinion so as to make it appear that
the legal principles expressed therein were binding on every
court in Iowa? To forge an opinion in such a way that it could
be authoritatively cited in briefs presented to Iowa courts?
I would really like to hear Larry's comments on this claim of
yours, but he seems to be ducking this one. I suspect if he
believed that you did this, he would feel obligated to turn
you in. But maybe he will speak for himself.
>>
>>2a. If not, is it someone else with the same name as you?
>>
>>2b. If neither, are you asserting there was no such case?
>
> There was no such case.
>>Again, simple yes or no questions, requiring you to type either
>>two letters or three.
>>
>>Here's one that might take a little longer, but given the amount
>>of posting you do here, you've probably got time:
>>
>>2c. If there was no such case, why is it in the law books?
>>
>
> I can get a copy of Black's Law and find the case listed?
Case law:
*****************************
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)
STATE of Iowa, Appellee
v.
Kent Bradley Wills
No. 04-0202
Supreme Court of Iowa
*****************************
Iowa Code
6.14(5) References in briefs to legal authorities.
In citing cases the names of parties must be
given. In citing Iowa cases, reference must
be made to the volume and page where the case
may be found in the Iowa Reports, if reported
therein, and in the North Western Reporter, if
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
reported therein. In citing cases reference must
be made to the court that rendered the opinion
and the volume and page where the same may be
found in the National Reporter System, if reported
therein. E.g., _ Iowa _, _N.W._ (20_);
_ N.W.2d_ (Iowa 20_); _N.W.2d_ (Iowa Ct. App. 20_);
_ S.W.2d_ (Mo. Ct. App. 20_);
_ U.S._, _ S.Ct._, _L. Ed. 2d_ (20_);
_ F. 2d_ (_Cir. 20_); _ F. Supp._ (S.D. Cal. 20_).
When quoting from authorities or referring to a
specific point within an authority, the specific
page or pages quoted or relied upon shall be given
in addition to the required page references.
[http://www.law.cornell.edu/citation/state_samples/sample_iowa.htm]
*****************************
One Reporter Covering Multiple Jurisdictions
Some states have their own reporter, which
exclusively publishes the decisions of that
state. Others rely upon a regional reporter
that covers several states. For example, the
decisions of the Iowa Supreme Court were
printed in Iowa Reports until 1968. Since that
time they have only been published (in print
format) in the North Western Reporter, which
also contains decisions from North Dakota,
South Dakota, Nebraska, Minnesota, Wisconsin
and Michigan (located at KF 135 .N7). Iowa
opinions may also be found on the Internet at
FindLaw and the Official website for the Iowa
Judicial Branch.
[http://www.law.drake.edu/library/default.aspx?pageID=libReporters]
******************************
snorey
Summary
Short Title: State v. Wills
Docket No. Case Type Status Trial Court Judge
04-0202 CRIMINAL CASE PROCEDENDO ISSUED SUPREME COURT HUPPERT HON. MICHAEL
D.
Appellate Judges/Justices
WIGGINS HON. DAVID S. - OPINION: AFFIRMED
Trial Court Case ID Originating County
FECR176876 POLK
Cite
696 NW2d 20
snorey
> Burglary or Forgery of State Criminal Justice Records, either way Kent Wills
> is a Felon.
Issues
Short Title: State v. Wills
Docket No.: 04-0202
Issues
INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE CRIMINAL CASE
INSTRUCTIONS
snorey
> As I understand it, on Wed, 20 Jun 2007 14:51:22 -0300, "• UltraMan •"
> <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>
>>Kent Wills wrote:
>>> As I understand it, on Tue, 19 Jun 2007 02:10:20 GMT, Wayne Delia
>>> <w...@deliafamily.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
>>>>> Wayne Delia wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [B.S.]
>>>>>
>>>>> Wayne must be hitting the bottle again.
>>>>
>>>> Not lately - but unlike you, I can afford to buy a round.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ted and his mates could try armed robbery again. We know it
>>> failed once, but it may have worked other times. And it might work
>>> now.
>>
>>Or Kent Wills could try Burglary again,
>
> I'd need to try at least once to try it again.
>
>>or falsifying State Court Records
>>...
>>
>
> I'd need to try at least once to try again.
Parties
Short Title: State v. Wills
Docket No.: 04-0202
Name Role Status
CLERK OF COURT POLK COUNTY DISTRICT COURT CLERK ACTIVE
CMELIK KEVIN ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE ACTIVE
JOHNSTON TRICIA ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT ACTIVE
STATE OF IOWA PLAINTIFF ACTIVE
STATE OF IOWA APPELLEE ACTIVE
TAYLOR KAREN A. ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT WITHDRAWN
WILLS KENT BRADLEY DEFENDANT ACTIVE
WILLS KENT BRADLEY APPELLANT ACTIVE
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
snorey
snorey
snorey
> And thank you for prove, again, that elementary concepts are
> beyond you.
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.
snorey
>
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
snorey
>
>
> And thank you for prove, again, that elementary concepts are
> beyond you.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
snorey
> No. YOU let everyone know.
> You're mentally ill mind won't save you if something does
> happen to him. You'll be sitting in jail waiting your own trial.
• UltraMan •
> As I understand it, on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:12:05 +0100, "¥ UltraMan ¥"
> <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>> As I understand it, on Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:50:30 +0100, "¥ UltraMan
>>> ¥" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>>> If you mean the "sting to catch a stalker" story, I wouldn't
>>>>>>> consider that a sane reason to participate in a felony.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Neither would a Judge or Jury ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then turn me in. I double dog dare ya.
>>>>
>>>> As you wish ...
>>>
>>> <Cue ticking clock sound FX>
>>
>> That's what Ted said about your threats to repudiate Geragos ...
>>
>
> There were no threats. I informed everyone AFTER I sent the
> complaints.
Too gutless to let them know you were going to snitch, eh punk?
> I don't know what, if anything became of them. I can
> reasonably guess, based on Ted's actions, that Geragos chewed him a
> new one, but this is only a guess.
So besides being a self-confessed felon, you're a gutless ratfuck snitch
too, eh Kent?
• UltraMan •
Maybe the Iowa Attorney General can answer this question ....
Larry
wrote:
> In article <a4em739vmo689s7no...@4ax.com>,
> Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >As I understand it, on 21 Jun 2007 21:29:55 -0400, tj...@wam.umd.edu
> >(tjab) wrote:
> >>
> >>2. Is the Kent Bradley Wills who appealed his conviction to the Iowa
> >>Supreme Court you?
> >
> > Yes and no. It's supposed to be me.
>
> Do you understand what a serious crime it would be to forge
> an Iowa Supreme Court opinion so as to make it appear that
> the legal principles expressed therein were binding on every
> court in Iowa? To forge an opinion in such a way that it could
> be authoritatively cited in briefs presented to Iowa courts?
>
> I would really like to hear Larry's comments on this claim of
> yours, but he seems to be ducking this one. I suspect if he
> believed that you did this, he would feel obligated to turn
> you in. But maybe he will speak for himself.
I will speak for myself, as I always do.
I don't know for sure, but I think Kent is messing with you. I could
imagine someone forging an opinion and putting it on a private web site,
but I don't see how a completely false, forged opinion gets published in
the official and regional reporters. There are channels by which they
receive the official decisions released for publication, and I think it
would be near-impossible to slip a fake court decision through.
If Kent did do that, it would likely be a felony, I imagine.
However, if Kent is the Kent that Ted thinks he is, I don't see how he's
not locked up. That's one issue that Ted (or anyone) hasn't been able
to satisfactorily address.
Kent Wills
(tjab) wrote:
Yes, and?
>I would really like to hear Larry's comments on this claim of
>yours, but he seems to be ducking this one. I suspect if he
>believed that you did this, he would feel obligated to turn
>you in. But maybe he will speak for himself.
I dared you to turn me in. You won't because you know the
truth. It's OK. Really. Some day you'll be mature enough to be able
to admit the truth when you know it.
>
>>>
>>>2a. If not, is it someone else with the same name as you?
>>>
>>>2b. If neither, are you asserting there was no such case?
>>
>> There was no such case.
>
>>>Again, simple yes or no questions, requiring you to type either
>>>two letters or three.
>>>
>>>Here's one that might take a little longer, but given the amount
>>>of posting you do here, you've probably got time:
>>>
>>>2c. If there was no such case, why is it in the law books?
>>>
>>
>> I can get a copy of Black's Law and find the case listed?
I note you didn't answer my question, as usual. The truth is
something you don't like.
Kent Wills
<ul...@man.jp> wrote:
What did the AG's office say when you turned me in? You
didn't lie about doing so, did you?
Oh wait, you can't tell the truth, no matter what, so of
course you didn't.
Kent Wills
<ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>Kent Wills wrote:
>> As I understand it, on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:12:05 +0100, "¥ UltraMan ¥"
>> <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>>
>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>> As I understand it, on Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:50:30 +0100, "¥ UltraMan
>>>> ¥" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you mean the "sting to catch a stalker" story, I wouldn't
>>>>>>>> consider that a sane reason to participate in a felony.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Neither would a Judge or Jury ...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Then turn me in. I double dog dare ya.
>>>>>
>>>>> As you wish ...
>>>>
>>>> <Cue ticking clock sound FX>
>>>
>>> That's what Ted said about your threats to repudiate Geragos ...
>>>
>>
>> There were no threats. I informed everyone AFTER I sent the
>> complaints.
>
>Too gutless to let them know you were going to snitch, eh punk?
Unlike you, I don't need to try and control people, then use
juvenile insults when it doesn't work.
>
>> I don't know what, if anything became of them. I can
>> reasonably guess, based on Ted's actions, that Geragos chewed him a
>> new one, but this is only a guess.
>
>So besides being a self-confessed felon, you're a gutless ratfuck snitch
>too, eh Kent?
>
When have I confessed to being a felon, liar?
And I've been called worse, and by far better.
Kent Wills
<45...@wert.or> wrote:
>On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 19:59:27 -0500, Kent Wills wrote:
>
>
>> And thank you for prove, again, that elementary concepts are
>> beyond you.
>
>
>IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
Thank you, David, for proving that I beat you once again. Are
you ready to admit defeat and move on?
--
Kent
Recuerdo del Fin Del Mundo!
• UltraMan •
> As I understand it, on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 06:24:24 +0100, "¥ UltraMan ¥"
> <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>> As I understand it, on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:12:05 +0100, "¥ UltraMan
>>> ¥" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>> As I understand it, on Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:50:30 +0100, "¥
>>>>> UltraMan ¥" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you mean the "sting to catch a stalker" story, I wouldn't
>>>>>>>>> consider that a sane reason to participate in a felony.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Neither would a Judge or Jury ...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then turn me in. I double dog dare ya.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> As you wish ...
>>>>>
>>>>> <Cue ticking clock sound FX>
>>>>
>>>> That's what Ted said about your threats to repudiate Geragos ...
>>>>
>>>
>>> There were no threats. I informed everyone AFTER I sent the
>>> complaints.
>>
>> Too gutless to let them know you were going to snitch, eh punk?
>
> Unlike you, I don't need to try and control people, then use
> juvenile insults when it doesn't work.
Projecting again Kent?
>
>>
>>> I don't know what, if anything became of them. I can
>>> reasonably guess, based on Ted's actions, that Geragos chewed him a
>>> new one, but this is only a guess.
>>
>> So besides being a self-confessed felon, you're a gutless ratfuck
>> snitch too, eh Kent?
>>
>
> When have I confessed to being a felon, liar?
> And I've been called worse, and by far better.
So it must be true them, if far better have called you far worse than a
lying felon.
• UltraMan •
> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:08:39 -0300, ¥ UltraMan ¥ wrote:
>
>
>> Burglary or Forgery of State Criminal Justice Records, either way
>> Kent Wills is a Felon.
>
> Issues
> Short Title: State v. Wills
> Docket No.: 04-0202
>
> Issues
> INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
> SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE CRIMINAL CASE
> INSTRUCTIONS
So Kent forged the entire underlying criminal case, police records, court
records, trial transcripts and
all, then forged the Appellate Ruling which DENIED his appeal as being
without merit ?
• UltraMan •
Who said I turned you in, eh asswipe?
> You didn't lie about doing so, did you?
Lie about what, jackass?
> Oh wait, you can't tell the truth, no matter what, so of
> course you didn't.
You really are quite deusional Kent, keeping track of all your deceptions
and lies
is making you quite insane.
• UltraMan •
> In article <f5fid5$m...@rac2.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
> wrote:
>
>> In article <a4em739vmo689s7no...@4ax.com>,
>> Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> As I understand it, on 21 Jun 2007 21:29:55 -0400, tj...@wam.umd.edu
>>> (tjab) wrote:
>>>>
>>>> 2. Is the Kent Bradley Wills who appealed his conviction to the
>>>> Iowa Supreme Court you?
>>>
>>> Yes and no. It's supposed to be me.
>>
>> Do you understand what a serious crime it would be to forge
>> an Iowa Supreme Court opinion so as to make it appear that
>> the legal principles expressed therein were binding on every
>> court in Iowa? To forge an opinion in such a way that it could
>> be authoritatively cited in briefs presented to Iowa courts?
>>
>> I would really like to hear Larry's comments on this claim of
>> yours, but he seems to be ducking this one. I suspect if he
>> believed that you did this, he would feel obligated to turn
>> you in. But maybe he will speak for himself.
>
> I will speak for myself, as I always do.
LOL! So you've never spoken for your circle-jerk buddy Kent the Felon, eh?
>
> I don't know for sure, but I think Kent is messing with you. I could
> imagine someone forging an opinion and putting it on a private web
> site, but I don't see how a completely false, forged opinion gets
> published in the official and regional reporters.
Not without committing numerous Felonies.
> There are channels by which they receive the official decisions released
> for
> publication, and I think it would be near-impossible to slip a fake
> court decision through.
So if it is in the official channel, then Kent Wills is the convicted
burglar it claims
he is, eh?
>
> If Kent did do that, it would likely be a felony, I imagine.
Brilliant, your years of legal scholarship have finally paid off Larry.
LOL!
>
> However, if Kent is the Kent that Ted thinks he is, I don't see how
> he's not locked up. That's one issue that Ted (or anyone) hasn't
> been able to satisfactorily address.
So is there a Kent Wills in the Iowa prison system right now? It would
be rather easy to confirm by contacting the Iowa Dept. of Corrections.
tjab
Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>In article <f5fid5$m...@rac2.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>wrote:
>
>> In article <a4em739vmo689s7no...@4ax.com>,
>> Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >As I understand it, on 21 Jun 2007 21:29:55 -0400, tj...@wam.umd.edu
>> >(tjab) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>2. Is the Kent Bradley Wills who appealed his conviction to the Iowa
>> >>Supreme Court you?
>> >
>> > Yes and no. It's supposed to be me.
>>
>> Do you understand what a serious crime it would be to forge
>> an Iowa Supreme Court opinion so as to make it appear that
>> the legal principles expressed therein were binding on every
>> court in Iowa? To forge an opinion in such a way that it could
>> be authoritatively cited in briefs presented to Iowa courts?
>>
>> I would really like to hear Larry's comments on this claim of
>> yours, but he seems to be ducking this one. I suspect if he
>> believed that you did this, he would feel obligated to turn
>> you in. But maybe he will speak for himself.
>
>I will speak for myself, as I always do.
>
>I don't know for sure, but I think Kent is messing with you.
I believe the technical term for that is "lying."
>I could
>imagine someone forging an opinion and putting it on a private web site,
>but I don't see how a completely false, forged opinion gets published in
>the official and regional reporters. There are channels by which they
>receive the official decisions released for publication, and I think it
>would be near-impossible to slip a fake court decision through.
>
>If Kent did do that, it would likely be a felony, I imagine.
>
>However, if Kent is the Kent that Ted thinks he is, I don't see how he's
>not locked up. That's one issue that Ted (or anyone) hasn't been able
>to satisfactorily address.
Well, you may not see how he's not locked up, but the Iowa Department
of Correction website says that Kent Bradley Wills (born 1/8/69, which
I believe Kent has acknowledged is his actual DOB) is currently on
probation for Burglary 2nd Degree (C Felony) until 1/16/2009. Given
that, the fact that you "don't see how" doesn't really count for that
much.
This may account for Kent's unwillingness to post his firearms permit.
(So Kent, did you forge the records on that web site as well?)
tjab
Or by looking at their web site, which states that Kent Bradley Wills
(dob 1/8/69) is currently on probation for Burglary 2nd Degree (and an
unspecified aggravated misdemeanor) until 2009.
Larry
Wow, you're obtuse. We've already established you don't understand the
concept of identity, and this furthers it.
If this is an authentic court decision, all that it proves is that the
case involves someone who, in that case, used the name Kent Wills.
Whether that is the same person as the Kent Wills that posts here has
not been proven. Could it be the same one? Sure - Kent Wills isn't the
most popular name (though its not entirely unique, either). But no one
has explained how this Kent is free to post on Usenet, much less not
incarcerated, if he is the same one who was convicted of burglary.
That's why they take fingerprints when someone is arrested, so that the
prints can be used to get their criminal record and not just their name.
>
> >
> > If Kent did do that, it would likely be a felony, I imagine.
>
> Brilliant, your years of legal scholarship have finally paid off Larry.
> LOL!
Actually, that you agree with me is causing me to doubt myself. There
must be a flaw in my argument somewhere. Or you're finally seeing the
light.
> > However, if Kent is the Kent that Ted thinks he is, I don't see how
> > he's not locked up. That's one issue that Ted (or anyone) hasn't
> > been able to satisfactorily address.
>
> So is there a Kent Wills in the Iowa prison system right now? It would
> be rather easy to confirm by contacting the Iowa Dept. of Corrections.
It can be confirmed without contacting them - this is public information
available on the internet.
• UltraMan •
> In article <5e23d7F...@mid.individual.net>,
The Probation Dept. should be able to confirm where, exactly, that Felon
resides.
• UltraMan •
Is it?
> all that it proves is that the
> case involves someone who, in that case, used the name Kent Wills.
And the DOB, and the Address, and the Biomorphic descriptors.
> Whether that is the same person as the Kent Wills that posts here has
> not been proven.
So the asshat who posts here as Kent Wills may not be Kent Wills at
all, he/she may actually be Larry the Legal Imbecile.
> Could it be the same one? Sure - Kent Wills isn't
> the most popular name (though its not entirely unique, either). But
> no one has explained how this Kent is free to post on Usenet,
Is USENET not allowed for Felons on probation?
> much
> less not incarcerated, if he is the same one who was convicted of
> burglary.
As tjab has asserted, THE Kent Wills of Iowa Felony infamy is currently
on PROBATION, not incarcerated.
A simple call to the Probation Dept. would confirm exactly where this
convicted felon lives,
and with whom.
>
> That's why they take fingerprints when someone is arrested, so that
> the prints can be used to get their criminal record and not just
> their name.
So after a complete trial, conviction, then an appeal and denial, the
cops/courts wouldn't
have the correct FBI print ID/Name record to ammend/append to the complaint,
eh Larry?
>>>
>>> If Kent did do that, it would likely be a felony, I imagine.
>>
>> Brilliant, your years of legal scholarship have finally paid off
>> Larry. LOL!
>
> Actually, that you agree with me is causing me to doubt myself. There
> must be a flaw in my argument somewhere.
Always is, no stretch there.
> Or you're finally seeing the
> light.
The light between your ears?
>
>>> However, if Kent is the Kent that Ted thinks he is, I don't see how
>>> he's not locked up. That's one issue that Ted (or anyone) hasn't
>>> been able to satisfactorily address.
>>
>> So is there a Kent Wills in the Iowa prison system right now? It
>> would
>> be rather easy to confirm by contacting the Iowa Dept. of
>> Corrections.
>
> It can be confirmed without contacting them - this is public
> information available on the internet.
Already done.
Now what twisted extenuation are you going to pull out of your ass?
Why would a self-proclaimed law&order prosecutor defend a Felonious ex-drug
addicted Simpleton from Iowa ?
• UltraMan •
The implication there is that he does own/possess firearms, which would
be not only a serious violation of his probation, but an additional Felony
charge with some rather stiff mandatory minimum prison sentence attached.
Got any guns in the house, Kent?
No fair claiming they are actually your wife's weapons.
snorey
> Kent Wills wrote:
>> As I understand it, on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 06:24:24 +0100, "Ą UltraMan Ą"
>> <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>>
>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>> As I understand it, on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:12:05 +0100, "Ą UltraMan
>>>> Ą" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>>> As I understand it, on Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:50:30 +0100, "Ą
>>>>>> UltraMan Ą" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you mean the "sting to catch a stalker" story, I wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>> consider that a sane reason to participate in a felony.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Neither would a Judge or Jury ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then turn me in. I double dog dare ya.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As you wish ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <Cue ticking clock sound FX>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what Ted said about your threats to repudiate Geragos ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There were no threats. I informed everyone AFTER I sent the
>>>> complaints.
>>>
>>> Too gutless to let them know you were going to snitch, eh punk?
>>
>> Unlike you, I don't need to try and control people, then use
>> juvenile insults when it doesn't work.
>
> Projecting again Kent?
>
>>
>>>
>>>> I don't know what, if anything became of them. I can
>>>> reasonably guess, based on Ted's actions, that Geragos chewed him a
>>>> new one, but this is only a guess.
>>>
>>> So besides being a self-confessed felon, you're a gutless ratfuck
>>> snitch too, eh Kent?
>>>
>>
>> When have I confessed to being a felon, liar?
>> And I've been called worse, and by far better.
>
> So it must be true them, if far better have called you far worse than a
> lying felon.
Name Kent Bradley Wills
Offender Number 1155768
Sex M
Birth Date 01/08/1969
Age 38
Location
Offense BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE
County Of Commitment Polk
Commitment Date 01/16/2004
Duration
TDD/SDD * 01/16/2009
* TDD = Tentative Discharge Date
* SDD = Supervision Discharge Date
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk
Probation C Felony Polk
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 11/25/2003
snorey
> snorey wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:08:39 -0300, Ą UltraMan Ą wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Burglary or Forgery of State Criminal Justice Records, either way
>>> Kent Wills is a Felon.
>>
>> Issues
>> Short Title: State v. Wills
>> Docket No.: 04-0202
>>
>> Issues
>> INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
>> SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE CRIMINAL CASE
>> INSTRUCTIONS
>
> So Kent forged the entire underlying criminal case, police records, court
> records, trial transcripts and
> all, then forged the Appellate Ruling which DENIED his appeal as being
> without merit ?
Name Kent Bradley Wills
snorey
Name Kent Bradley Wills
snorey
Name Kent Bradley Wills
snorey
> snorey wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:08:39 -0300, Ą UltraMan Ą wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Burglary or Forgery of State Criminal Justice Records, either way
>>> Kent Wills is a Felon.
>>
>> Issues
>> Short Title: State v. Wills
>> Docket No.: 04-0202
>>
>> Issues
>> INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
>> SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE CRIMINAL CASE
>> INSTRUCTIONS
>
> So Kent forged the entire underlying criminal case, police records, court
> records, trial transcripts and
> all, then forged the Appellate Ruling which DENIED his appeal as being
> without merit ?
Name Kent Bradley Wills
tjab
Don't forget the entry on the Iowa Department of Corrections web site!
All in all, it must have involved quite a bit of work. I wonder if he
had a lawyer to help him?
• UltraMan •
> In article <5e232kF...@mid.individual.net>,
>>>
>>>
>>>> Burglary or Forgery of State Criminal Justice Records, either way
>>>> Kent Wills is a Felon.
>>>
>>> Issues
>>> Short Title: State v. Wills
>>> Docket No.: 04-0202
>>>
>>> Issues
>>> INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
>>> SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE CRIMINAL CASE
>>> INSTRUCTIONS
>>
>> So Kent forged the entire underlying criminal case, police records,
>> court records, trial transcripts and
>> all, then forged the Appellate Ruling which DENIED his appeal as
>> being without merit ?
>
> Don't forget the entry on the Iowa Department of Corrections web site!
>
> All in all, it must have involved quite a bit of work. I wonder if he
> had a lawyer to help him?
The one he claimed was ineffective ...
Kent Wills
<ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>Kent Wills wrote:
>> As I understand it, on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 06:24:24 +0100, "¥ UltraMan ¥"
>> <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>>
>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>> As I understand it, on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 02:12:05 +0100, "¥ UltraMan
>>>> ¥" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>>> As I understand it, on Thu, 21 Jun 2007 22:50:30 +0100, "¥
>>>>>> UltraMan ¥" <ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [...]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you mean the "sting to catch a stalker" story, I wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>> consider that a sane reason to participate in a felony.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Neither would a Judge or Jury ...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Then turn me in. I double dog dare ya.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> As you wish ...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> <Cue ticking clock sound FX>
>>>>>
>>>>> That's what Ted said about your threats to repudiate Geragos ...
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> There were no threats. I informed everyone AFTER I sent the
>>>> complaints.
>>>
>>> Too gutless to let them know you were going to snitch, eh punk?
>>
>> Unlike you, I don't need to try and control people, then use
>> juvenile insults when it doesn't work.
>
>Projecting again Kent?
>
Again? That implies I've done so in the past. Projection
transference is YOUR mental issue, not mine.
>>
>>>
>>>> I don't know what, if anything became of them. I can
>>>> reasonably guess, based on Ted's actions, that Geragos chewed him a
>>>> new one, but this is only a guess.
>>>
>>> So besides being a self-confessed felon, you're a gutless ratfuck
>>> snitch too, eh Kent?
>>>
>>
>> When have I confessed to being a felon, liar?
>> And I've been called worse, and by far better.
>
>So it must be true them,
If I had confessed to being a felon, I wouldn't need to ask
you when I did it, stupid.
>if far better have called you far worse than a
>lying felon.
>
Could you write that in English?
--
Kent
"The war for the future will be fought in the past."
-- Jordan Collier
Kent Wills
<45...@wert.or> wrote:
[...]
>>>> So besides being a self-confessed felon, you're a gutless ratfuck
>>>> snitch too, eh Kent?
>>>>
>>>
>>> When have I confessed to being a felon, liar?
>>> And I've been called worse, and by far better.
>>
>> So it must be true them, if far better have called you far worse than a
>> lying felon.
>
>Name Kent Bradley Wills
Yawn.
Give up, David. You are out of your league.
Kent Wills
<ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>snorey wrote:
>> On Wed, 20 Jun 2007 17:08:39 -0300, ¥ UltraMan ¥ wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Burglary or Forgery of State Criminal Justice Records, either way
>>> Kent Wills is a Felon.
>>
>> Issues
>> Short Title: State v. Wills
>> Docket No.: 04-0202
>>
>> Issues
>> INEFFECTIVE ASSISTANCE OF COUNSEL
>> SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE CRIMINAL CASE
>> INSTRUCTIONS
>
>So Kent forged the entire underlying criminal case, police records, court
>records, trial transcripts and
Could you offer a link to these reports? Didn't think so.
Why do you NEED to lie?
>all, then forged the Appellate Ruling which DENIED his appeal as being
>without merit ?
>
I made no such forgery.
Kent Wills
<ul...@man.jp> wrote:
You did. At least you implied it.
>
>> You didn't lie about doing so, did you?
>
>Lie about what, jackass?
>
Turning me in. While my double dog dare was directed at tjab,
you replied implying you were going to do so.
>
>> Oh wait, you can't tell the truth, no matter what, so of
>> course you didn't.
>
>You really are quite deusional Kent, keeping track of all your deceptions
>and lies
>is making you quite insane.
>
Since I've not lied (if I had, you would have pounced on at
least one of my MANY requests for a cite), I've not needed to keep
track of any.
You, on the other hand, continue to offer evidence that you
are mentally ill. As such it is safe to state you either are mentally
ill, or want everyone reading to think you are.
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>If Kent did do that, it would likely be a felony, I imagine.
I would imagine so as well, though I'd need to check to say
with certainty.
>
>However, if Kent is the Kent that Ted thinks he is, I don't see how he's
>not locked up. That's one issue that Ted (or anyone) hasn't been able
>to satisfactorily address.
At this time I could be on parole, but since I've never been
to prison (visiting Alcatraz doesn't really count), I can't be on
parole. And no one with all those convictions (a total of four or
five, depending on who's posting) is going to get away with probation.
Especially given Iowa's sentencing laws.
No one's been able to address the fact that I am able to do
things a convicted felon can't. Like be registered to vote, for
example.
Yes, a felon can *register* to vote, but not legally. And it
would be Jonez/vox poLIAR/Ultratwit stupid to offer evidence of being
registered to vote if being such is illegal.
Kent Wills
<ul...@man.jp> wrote:
[...]
>
>>
>> However, if Kent is the Kent that Ted thinks he is, I don't see how
>> he's not locked up. That's one issue that Ted (or anyone) hasn't
>> been able to satisfactorily address.
>
>So is there a Kent Wills in the Iowa prison system right now? It would
>be rather easy to confirm by contacting the Iowa Dept. of Corrections.
>
At this time it would be possible for one convicted in 2003
(or was it 2004, you have listed both) to be on parole. The problem
is, I've not been to prison. Save for a tour of Alcatraz, I've never
stepped foot inside of one. I don't have any plans to visit one
either.
--
Kent
Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin.
I poked a badger with a spoon.
Kent Wills
<ul...@man.jp> wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Or by looking at their web site, which states that Kent Bradley Wills
>> (dob 1/8/69) is currently on probation for Burglary 2nd Degree (and an
>> unspecified aggravated misdemeanor) until 2009.
>
>The Probation Dept. should be able to confirm where, exactly, that Felon
>resides.
Did you call and ask? If so, what did they tell you?
Something like, "We don't have anyone named Kent Wills on probation at
this time."?
--
Kent
"I most stonger than Darth Vapor!"
-- Zladko "Zlad" Vladcik
Kent Wills
wrote:
There are at least three in Iowa of which I am aware.
>But no one
>has explained how this Kent is free to post on Usenet, much less not
>incarcerated, if he is the same one who was convicted of burglary.
I thought I explained that.
Part of the sentencing requires that we access the Internet.
Sure, we're limited to DSL, which bites if one wants to use P2P, but
I'm happy with it.
>
>That's why they take fingerprints when someone is arrested, so that the
>prints can be used to get their criminal record and not just their name.
>
I suppose I could scan my hand and Jonez/vox poLIAR/Ultratwit
can check.
>
>
>>
>> >
>> > If Kent did do that, it would likely be a felony, I imagine.
>>
>> Brilliant, your years of legal scholarship have finally paid off Larry.
>> LOL!
>
>Actually, that you agree with me is causing me to doubt myself. There
>must be a flaw in my argument somewhere. Or you're finally seeing the
>light.
Given the evidence available of his pathological lying, I'd be
very worried.
>
>> > However, if Kent is the Kent that Ted thinks he is, I don't see how
>> > he's not locked up. That's one issue that Ted (or anyone) hasn't
>> > been able to satisfactorily address.
>>
>> So is there a Kent Wills in the Iowa prison system right now? It would
>> be rather easy to confirm by contacting the Iowa Dept. of Corrections.
>
>It can be confirmed without contacting them - this is public information
>available on the internet.
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/OffenderInfo.asp
That should make it easy. When I searched my name, two other
names came up. Kenneth Dean Welsch and Kandi Marie Wilks.
I'm pretty sure I'm not Kenneth and 100% certain I'm not
Kandi. I have the wrong innie and outie parts to be her.
Kent Wills
<ul...@man.jp> wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Wow, you're obtuse. We've already established you don't understand
>> the concept of identity, and this furthers it.
>>
>> If this is an authentic court decision,
>
>Is it?
You tell us. What we you told when you turned me in, as you
implied you would?
>
>> all that it proves is that the
>> case involves someone who, in that case, used the name Kent Wills.
>
>And the DOB, and the Address,
You wouldn't have noticed right away (it takes some digging),
but the address is for an abandoned, at the time, hotel. Since I was
posting regularly to Usenet at the time, it's very unlikely I was
doing so from a hotel that, in addition to falling apart, had no
phone, cable nor electricity.
>and the Biomorphic descriptors.
And what biomorphic descriptors were there?
>
>> Whether that is the same person as the Kent Wills that posts here has
>> not been proven.
>
>So the asshat who posts here as Kent Wills may not be Kent Wills at
>all, he/she may actually be Larry the Legal Imbecile.
If Larry is a legal imbecile, what does that make you? He's
proved time and time again that he knows law while you don't.
>
>> Could it be the same one? Sure - Kent Wills isn't
>> the most popular name (though its not entirely unique, either). But
>> no one has explained how this Kent is free to post on Usenet,
>
>Is USENET not allowed for Felons on probation?
A 10 year sentence. Under Iowa law, the offended MUST serve
at least one third of their sentence before they can even ask for
parole. That's why Ted started claiming I'm on probation.
>
>> much
>> less not incarcerated, if he is the same one who was convicted of
>> burglary.
>
>As tjab has asserted, THE Kent Wills of Iowa Felony infamy is currently
>on PROBATION, not incarcerated.
He got that from Ted.
>
>A simple call to the Probation Dept. would confirm exactly where this
>convicted felon lives,
>and with whom.
>
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/OffenderInfo.asp
Take a look. Tell us what you find.
>>
>> That's why they take fingerprints when someone is arrested, so that
>> the prints can be used to get their criminal record and not just
>> their name.
>
>So after a complete trial, conviction, then an appeal and denial, the
>cops/courts wouldn't
>have the correct FBI print ID/Name record to ammend/append to the complaint,
>eh Larry?
That question makes no sense in the context of Larry's
statement.
>
>
>>>>
>>>> If Kent did do that, it would likely be a felony, I imagine.
>>>
>>> Brilliant, your years of legal scholarship have finally paid off
>>> Larry. LOL!
>>
>> Actually, that you agree with me is causing me to doubt myself. There
>> must be a flaw in my argument somewhere.
>
>Always is, no stretch there.
But he was agreeing with you on most points. Are you saying
you were and are wrong? You must be.
I truly applaud you for making this giant step towards getting
well. It couldn't have been easy for you.
>
>> Or you're finally seeing the
>> light.
>
>The light between your ears?
>
>>
>>>> However, if Kent is the Kent that Ted thinks he is, I don't see how
>>>> he's not locked up. That's one issue that Ted (or anyone) hasn't
>>>> been able to satisfactorily address.
>>>
>>> So is there a Kent Wills in the Iowa prison system right now? It
>>> would
>>> be rather easy to confirm by contacting the Iowa Dept. of
>>> Corrections.
>>
>> It can be confirmed without contacting them - this is public
>> information available on the internet.
>
>Already done.
>
What did they tell you, exactly? Something like, "We have no
one named Kent Wills in our system."?
>Now what twisted extenuation are you going to pull out of your ass?
>
>Why would a self-proclaimed law&order prosecutor defend a Felonious ex-drug
>addicted
Drug addicted? Are you refereeing to the fact that I used to
smoke cigarettes? While nicotine is a drug, the way you disruptively
word it implies I was addicted to an illegal drug.
>Simpleton from Iowa ?
>
Yet I'm your superior in all things that matter, and many that
don't. If I'm a simpleton, what does that make you?
--
Kent
Born once - Die twice. Born twice - Die only once. Your choice...
Sig "borrowed" from Joe.
tjab
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>As I understand it, on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 08:40:01 GMT, Larry <x...@y.com>
>wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>
>>If Kent did do that, it would likely be a felony, I imagine.
>
> I would imagine so as well, though I'd need to check to say
>with certainty.
>
>>
>>However, if Kent is the Kent that Ted thinks he is, I don't see how he's
>>not locked up. That's one issue that Ted (or anyone) hasn't been able
>>to satisfactorily address.
>
> At this time I could be on parole, but since I've never been
>to prison (visiting Alcatraz doesn't really count), I can't be on
>parole. And no one with all those convictions (a total of four or
>five, depending on who's posting) is going to get away with probation.
>Especially given Iowa's sentencing laws.
That's not what the Iowa Department of Corrections web site says.
According to that web site, Kent Bradley Wills is on probation
(not parole) until 2009, for felony burglary and an unspecified
aggravated misdemeanor.
> No one's been able to address the fact that I am able to do
>things a convicted felon can't. Like be registered to vote, for
>example.
> Yes, a felon can *register* to vote, but not legally. And it
>would be Jonez/vox poLIAR/Ultratwit stupid to offer evidence of being
>registered to vote if being such is illegal.
We're supposed to believe that you would forge (or cause to have forged)
Iowa State criminal records for yourself, but yet are too honorable to fake
a fundraising letter from the Republican National Committee?
Post that weapons permit, ok? And don't blank out the date.
tjab
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>As I understand it, on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 15:07:33 +0100, "• UltraMan •"
><ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>
>[...]
>
>>
>>>
>>> However, if Kent is the Kent that Ted thinks he is, I don't see how
>>> he's not locked up. That's one issue that Ted (or anyone) hasn't
>>> been able to satisfactorily address.
>>
>>So is there a Kent Wills in the Iowa prison system right now? It would
>>be rather easy to confirm by contacting the Iowa Dept. of Corrections.
>>
>
> At this time it would be possible for one convicted in 2003
>(or was it 2004, you have listed both) to be on parole.
A moot point, since according to the Iowa Department of Corrections,
Kent Bradley Wills, convicted of felony burglary, is on probation
(not parole) from Jan 2004-Jan 2009.
>The problem
>is, I've not been to prison.
Have you been in jail?
>Save for a tour of Alcatraz, I've never
>stepped foot inside of one. I don't have any plans to visit one
>either.
Few *plan* to be in prison.
Kent Wills
(tjab) wrote:
>In article <x-7A0E7D.04...@news.west.earthlink.net>,
>Larry <x...@y.com> wrote:
>>In article <f5fid5$m...@rac2.wam.umd.edu>, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab)
>>wrote:
>>
>>> In article <a4em739vmo689s7no...@4ax.com>,
>>> Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> >As I understand it, on 21 Jun 2007 21:29:55 -0400, tj...@wam.umd.edu
>>> >(tjab) wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>2. Is the Kent Bradley Wills who appealed his conviction to the Iowa
>>> >>Supreme Court you?
>>> >
>>> > Yes and no. It's supposed to be me.
>>>
>>> Do you understand what a serious crime it would be to forge
>>> an Iowa Supreme Court opinion so as to make it appear that
>>> the legal principles expressed therein were binding on every
>>> court in Iowa? To forge an opinion in such a way that it could
>>> be authoritatively cited in briefs presented to Iowa courts?
>>>
>>> I would really like to hear Larry's comments on this claim of
>>> yours, but he seems to be ducking this one. I suspect if he
>>> believed that you did this, he would feel obligated to turn
>>> you in. But maybe he will speak for himself.
>>
>>I will speak for myself, as I always do.
>>
>>I don't know for sure, but I think Kent is messing with you.
>
>I believe the technical term for that is "lying."
You, being an expert on lying and all, would consider anything
you don't like a lie.
>
>>I could
>>imagine someone forging an opinion and putting it on a private web site,
>>but I don't see how a completely false, forged opinion gets published in
>>the official and regional reporters. There are channels by which they
>>receive the official decisions released for publication, and I think it
>>would be near-impossible to slip a fake court decision through.
>>
>>If Kent did do that, it would likely be a felony, I imagine.
>>
>>However, if Kent is the Kent that Ted thinks he is, I don't see how he's
>>not locked up. That's one issue that Ted (or anyone) hasn't been able
>>to satisfactorily address.
>
>Well, you may not see how he's not locked up, but the Iowa Department
>of Correction website says that Kent Bradley Wills (born 1/8/69, which
>I believe Kent has acknowledged is his actual DOB) is currently on
>probation for Burglary 2nd Degree (C Felony) until 1/16/2009. Given
>that, the fact that you "don't see how" doesn't really count for that
>much.
Odd. When I entered my name, I got two other names. They're
kind of close to my name.
When I entered my full name (middle name included) and date of
birth, I got no results.
As an interesting, IMO, aside one of the names is Kandi Marie
Wilks. She's no longer on parole (it ended 12/26/2000) yet her
information is in the system. Odd that I'm not, huh? I mean,
according to you, I'm still "on paper". I should be there before
Kandi.
Bet you avoid this and post something that has NOTHING to do
with the issue I've raised.
>
>This may account for Kent's unwillingness to post his firearms permit.
You already admitted you were wrong. It's too late to change
your position now.
I still don't see the reason for you posting all of the returns at the
end of your posts. I've tried it twice now and can only conclude it's
an indication that you have issues.
--
Kent
Take too many pictures, laugh too much, and love like you've never
been hurt because every sixty seconds you spend upset is a minute of
happiness you'll never get back
Kent Wills
<ul...@man.jp> wrote:
[...]
>>
>> This may account for Kent's unwillingness to post his firearms permit.
>
>The implication there is that he does own/possess firearms, which would
>be not only a serious violation of his probation, but an additional Felony
>charge with some rather stiff mandatory minimum prison sentence attached.
>
>Got any guns in the house, Kent?
>
Several, though most are civil war era or older. You couldn't
pay me enough to fire one. The nice looking, though very old, English
Tower pistol is "pride" of my collection. I'll NEVER fire it, no
matter what. I doubt it would handle the force of being fired.
I could post a picture of it, if you'd like.
>No fair claiming they are actually your wife's weapons.
She has her own gun.
Kent Wills
<45...@wert.or> wrote:
[...]
>>>> I can get a copy of Black's Law and find the case listed?
>>
>> I note you didn't answer my question, as usual. The truth is
>> something you don't like.
>
>Name Kent Bradley Wills
Dang, David. Obsess much?
tjab
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>As I understand it, on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 16:56:03 +0100, "• UltraMan •"
><ul...@man.jp> wrote:
>
>
>[...]
>
>>>
>>> Or by looking at their web site, which states that Kent Bradley Wills
>>> (dob 1/8/69) is currently on probation for Burglary 2nd Degree (and an
>>> unspecified aggravated misdemeanor) until 2009.
>>
>>The Probation Dept. should be able to confirm where, exactly, that Felon
>>resides.
>
> Did you call and ask? If so, what did they tell you?
>Something like, "We don't have anyone named Kent Wills on probation at
>this time."?
No need, as Larry pointed out, their records are also on the web. And
those records say that Kent Bradley Wills is on probation until 2009.
Is that your middle name, Bradley?
tjab
Yes, Soundex results. However, the name Kent Bradley Wills also comes
up, as anyone who goes there and looks up "Kent Wills" will quickly
discover. With a birthdate that I think (correct me if I'm wrong)
you've acknlowledged to be yours. Check it out, Larry. Apparently
felony burglary doesn't necessarily mean prison time in the state
of Iowa.
tjab
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>As I understand it, on Fri, 22 Jun 2007 17:08:34 +0100, "• UltraMan •"
><ul...@man.jp> wrote:
. . .
>>As tjab has asserted, THE Kent Wills of Iowa Felony infamy is currently
>>on PROBATION, not incarcerated.
>
> He got that from Ted.
No, I got that from the Iowa Department of Corrections. I get nothing
from Ted.
>http://www.doc.state.ia.us/OffenderInfo.asp
>
> Take a look. Tell us what you find.
Done, and done. I invite others to do the same.