STATE OF IOWA vs. KENT BRADLEY WILLS: The Denial Game Didn't Work Back Then Either :)
kensmithiscool
WILLS happens to be one of my personal favorites... for obvious
reasons!
"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.*" .
https://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/browse_thread/thread/dd5178653837e4cc
Greegor
> the burglary, the officers arrested him.*" .
My favorite WAS was the street view of the shack Kent lives in
with a red metal clamshell chair on a concrete "stoop" porch.
Google seems to have cut way back on STREET VIEW though.
If you fiddle with it you can still get street view to show
the red metal clamshell lawn chair on his the concrete porch.
Isn't it interesting how Iowa puts people's full name
and Date Of Birth online for OLD traffic tickets?
Iowa Courts show:
Iowa 02641 NTWG734877 STATE OF IOWA vs WILLS, JANET RAE
DOB: 02/16/1947 DEFENDANT ( Caught running a stop light )
(She was also the executor for the estates of three
different people with the last name of Lee.)
02641 STWG328232 speeding and
05771 STP299366 STATE IOWA vs WILLS, FREDERICK ALFRED
DOB: 11/21/1943 DEFENDANT speeding
05771 STP596511 STATE OF IOWA vs WILLS, FREDERICK ALFRED
DOB: 11/21/1943 DEFENDANT speeding and failure to stop
On 8/12/2003 Kent got caught using
SEAN MICHAEL BILYEU DOB 12/18/1985
as an accomplice to a felony garage burglary
05771 FECR176876. It was Kent's second
felony for thieving, and he got a misdemeanor
conviction for using a minor as an accomplice.
https://www.dobsearch.com/people-finder/index.php?advanced=1
Type in the right blanks: Kent Wills Jan 8 1969 and hit the search
button.
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
Click on the "Start a Case Search Here" button (underlined)
Click on "Case Search" button (underlined) (You get the search
blanks)
Type in the right blanks Wills, Kent, B and hit the Search button.
Compressed form with DATES for display on usenet:
OffenseDate County Case Number
Jan 24 2000 05771 FECR145250 STATE v WILLS [DOB] 01/08/1969
Aug 12 2003 05771 FECR176876 STATE v WILLS [DOB] 01/08/1969
Mar 30 1999 05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS v WILLS
Dec 7 2000 05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL v WILLS dism 90 days
Aug 15 2003 05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE v WILLS rents dism
Aug 15 2003 05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III v WILLS dism "FED"?
April 9, 2002 05771 STAN201670 STATE v WILLS [DOB] 01/08/1969 exp DL
Jan 9 2003 05771 STAN210929 STATE v WILLS [DOB] 01/08/1969 veh reg
Aug 23 2003 05771 SWCR177169 STATE v WILLS [DOB] 01/08/1969 Srch Warr
TWellingfan
(( snipped))
I like this one from you from FaceBook:
http://www.facebook.com/pages/Bob-Larson-Is-A-Fraud/171748786186422
*********
Kensmithis Cool
No premature gloating at all, Maureen. The kind visit by ABC Nightline
last week while in New York is something I am sure you will thoroughly
enjoy when it airs :) Just don't tell Hattan about producers for a ver
popular television person...ality that want to do an episode with BL
on Oprah's OWN network, or the recent return on Jackie O's radio
program -- the most popular radio program in Autralia. All this media
coverge will surely give John-boy a serious nervous breakdown :)
Monday at 14:36 ·
*************
Aside from your usual Twitter--esque misspellings, the interesting
thing about your little boast is this:
In the whole bit there is all about Bob Larson and his need for
publicity ( vanity). Not one word on what should be emphasized if
Larson is indeed a "Deliverance minister" as he claims to be.
Even as a Pagan I can see what isn't there and hasn't been evident in
your posts on usenet for years. And its something that if Larson was
legit ( which he isn't) that should be forefront whenever he's being
"interviewed".
Can you guess the IMPORTANT thing that is almost always missing from
your boastings about Larson yet?
Moe
TWellingfan
BTW onlooking through some old stuff I found this interesting
allegation:
$$$$$$
Ever since Bob and Kathy Larson started having marital difficulties,
rumors concerning his alleged infidelity have run rampant. This com
ment is from "the Salem letters," anonymous correspondence from a BLM
staff member to Salem Broadcasting president Ed Atsinger:
"Mr. Larson has had other traveling and bed companions such as
Mrs Boespflug, who most likely supposes as the others that she
is unique and something special. And she is for the moment.
Why not ask Ms Behrens who was his 'best friend' for four or
five years and traveling companion to many 5 star hotels in
such places as San Francisco, San Diego, San Francisco, Tucson
and Hawaii. You might want to ask her about her last sexual
encounter with Mr. Larson where she was overwhelmed with a
demonic presence [all sentences in context]."7
7 Anonymous, Letter (to Edward Atsinger, President of Salem Communica
tions), 1991. (The authenticity of the letter was confirmed by former
Salem employee John Stewart; Boespflug denied having sexual relations
with Larson, but related the story of how he "tried to insinuate him
self into her life" in the June 16 interview. [Some of Larson's more
entertaining attempts to 'court Ms. Boespflug were chronicled in my
open letter to David Neff
of Christianity Today ("CT on the Block," published in the __/__/93
issue of
the CPR)].) 8 Lori Boespflug, Interview, 17 Jun. 1992 (According to
Boespflug,
the trip was to "make it up to the girls" for the time she spent
writing
Dead Air; ergo, either she was writing "his" book, or Bob was having
an affair with her).
$$$$$$$
This is from Ken Smith, in 1993.
Full text here:
I just thought it interesting that Larson, while fornicating during
BLM with one of his "Christian" lady friends that one actually
perceived an "overwhelmed demonic presence" in her sexual encounter
with Larson. Aside from the obvious that she was fornicating in some
naive or brainwashed idea that Larson's carnal "love' of her was "
godly", I find this experience of this alleged "real exorcist"
actually being controlled or possessed by demons himself yet another
example of how much a wolf in sheep's clothing Larson has been for
years.
There have been a few others I've found that attended Larson's
"conferences" and have remarked that they see "demons" coming FROM
Larson.
Personally, as a skeptic of the claims about demons and demon
possession, my view is that what others " see" as demons is in fact
their religious-tainted perception of a more mundane but no less
sinister human personality defect.
But if you want to put it in Christian theology terms, Larson while
pretending to cast out demons is in fact doing Satan's work in
exploiting the naive faithful and leading them into spiritual and
emotional harm, not to mention financially vampirizing them. Two of
the Seven Deadly Sins are vanity and avarice and Larson has both in
spades. According to Christian exorcists ( legitimate ones, not
shysters like Larson), the exorcist has to have confessed all his sins
so that the demon cannot use any unconfessed sin against the exorcist
in the " spiritual battle". Interesting that the alleged demons Larson
" exorcises" on video never seem to mention his various sins,
including fornication, addiction to porn and certain more appalling
sins that have come to light about Bob Larson.
As if the "demons' were in cahoots with Larson.
Moe
larsonomicon
Oh I can believe that.
larsonomicon
Just WOW...
larsonomicon
> Can you guess the IMPORTANT thing that is almost always missing from
> your boastings about Larson yet?
>
> Moe
>
Can you ever stop stalking the man?
larsonomicon
> $$$$$$
>
> This is from Ken Smith, in 1993.
See, stalking act again Moe, you sicko!
kensmithiscool
TWellingfan wrote:
> In the whole bit there is all about Bob Larson and his need for
> publicity ( vanity). Not one word on what should be emphasized if
> Larson is indeed a "Deliverance minister" as he claims to be.
Why should I announce that BL is a deliverance minister at a forum
dedicated to BL when you and everyone there already knows this?
Nightline. Jackie O. Lisa Ling. Numerous outlets in the international
press. Those are just a few of the recent secular outlets where you
can find BL described as not only a deliverance minister, but
spiritual mentor and teacher.
> Even as a Pagan I can see what isn't there and hasn't been evident in
> your posts on usenet for years. And its something that if Larson was
> legit ( which he isn't) that should be forefront whenever he's being
> "interviewed".
Why doesn't John Hattan acknowledge your Facebook comments to him?
> Can you guess the IMPORTANT thing that is almost always missing from
> your boastings about Larson yet?
>
> Moe
That you have yet to exhibit in your responses to my boastings that
you have two braincells to rub together???
Greegor
>
> Oh I can believe that.
With TWO thieving felonies and a misdemeanor
for using a teen as an accomplice, Kent still
posts that he is a SCHOOL TEACHER.
Is he trying to LURE another teenager for
a criminal enterprise?
That's why his folks had to set up the family
money through a "spendthrift trust" to Kent
to keep the imbecile from spending it all
on magic beans or losing it all to a big law suit.
They live out in a rural area while
their dimwitted son Kent lives in
another, scruffy little house they
own in town. It's the scruffiest
house in the whole development.
larsonomicon
More of a shack really, pretty humble place.
TWellingfan
> TWellingfan wrote:
> > In the whole bit there is all about Bob Larson and his need for
> > publicity ( vanity). Not one word on what should be emphasized if
> > Larson is indeed a "Deliverance minister" as he claims to be.
>
> Why should I announce that BL is a deliverance minister at a forum
> dedicated to BL when you and everyone there already knows this?
Its not the announcements its what isn't in it that should be in it
if Larson was this " man of god" as he pretends to be.
Yes Bobbie Larson is an attention whore, and that has been known for
a long time. The various things you do NOT mention and conveniently
leave out include the fact that for a supposed "foremost authority"
he hasn't been mentioned as a credible source in any respectable book,
his " conferences" and so-called " deliverance" appearances in America
have mostly NOT been in churches ( and you know why as well as I do
why that is so) and the blatant Simony Larson practices are among the
MANY credibility problems Larson has. While you can crow about
Larson's scheduled appearances in various major TV programs, you seem
to have this delusional view that his appearances are a sign of
credibility, when they will not be.
When I posted the Ken Smith statement that while Larson was
schtupping one of his females in fornication while at BLM where she
felt an " overwhelming evil presence", that is relevant to Larson's
current scam of claiming to be a "real exorcist" and his boast of
being one for over 30 years. If you actually want a credible source
about exorcism and demonology, you should pick up tow of Malachi
Martins' books. They are quite enlightening about the risks actual
exorcists face. He also gives guidelines of how an exorcist is to
prepare himself before an exorcism to best do battle with the evil
spirit.
Larson's well known litany of SINS while at BLM was also while he
supposedly was "casting out demons" live on the mic on the air. And
not one of these SHILLS who pretended to be demon possessed had a
demon which knew any of Larson's many sins, including fornication, his
addiction to porn, his greed, etc..
Add to that that a few observers, devout Christians may I add, have
revealed that they perceive demons COMING FROM Larson and the obvious
conclusion is that if there is a demon possessed person, it isn't the
audience but Larson himself.
Aside from the more mundane fact that Larson uses stage hypnosis and
"repeat exorcisms" shills in the audience, one of the things tat
Rev.Motal rightly brought up is that fact that ACTUAL demon possession
and exorcism includes paranormal phenomena. Larson claims certain
supernatural events happened in his prior exorcisms but he currently
FILMS most of his now. And yet none of what he films he's revealed
recording any paranormal phenomena.
Because it is not paranormal or supernatural and he damn well knows
it.
> Nightline. Jackie O. Lisa Ling. Numerous outlets in the international
> press. Those are just a few of the recent secular outlets where you
> can find BL described as not only a deliverance minister, but
> spiritual mentor and teacher.
>
(( rolls eyes)) I've heard one TV interview he did where he was called
"Father Larson". " Reverend ROBERT Larson" etc. Just because some
sloppy assed TV hack parrots the Larson press release does not mean it
is the truth. Remember the "National Examiner" piece?
How can Larson be a " spiritual mentor" when he himself doesn't
answer to a pastor and hasn't done so even before Talk Back? As for
the spiritual mentor claim, that is BS as well as your claim of him
being a teacher. When credible Christian ministers ( who got their
degrees legitimately, not via mail order like Larson did) call him an
apostate and his teachings as unbiblical, that is a good indication
that Larson's ACTUAL credibility among what should be his peers is
almost nonexistant.
> > Even as a Pagan I can see what isn't there and hasn't been evident in
> > your posts on usenet for years. And its something that if Larson was
> > legit ( which he isn't) that should be forefront whenever he's being
> > "interviewed".
>
> Why doesn't John Hattan acknowledge your Facebook comments to him?
Why should he? Avoidance of what I said noted, BTW. What IS missing
from Larson? Care to answer that one or are you going to try to ignore
the question?
Are you trying to get Hattan's attention for some reason? Seriously,
you DO realize, don't you, that for Hattan Larson is a nobody, a has-
been, someone who used to occupy his interest years ago but like disco
mercifully faded back into the past. Larson, no matter how much he as
the televangelist tapeworm in the Body of Christ might desire the
limelight, his peak has passed and all his efforts to regain his
former selfish glory have repeatedly failed.
The ironic thing is that Larson could have been AN "authority" but not
on "cults and the occult" ( his TB show about the Solar Temple cult
suicides showed that that claim is a lie),but certainly not any sort
of "foremost" authority on anything. He's ruined his actual
credibility years ago when he started lying about his " budding rock
music career" and lied about so many other things about himself over
the years.
What you seem not to be able to grasp is that while Larson promotes
himself so he can get on the "major TV", that does NOT mean that when
he does get interviewed or taped that the people doing it see him as
credible. Larson, media whore that he is, gets too addicted to the
feeding his ego to focus on what he should be focusing on if he was
actually what he claims to be.
There's a good reason why selfishness/vanity is one of the seven
deadly SINS, KSIC-ko.
>
> > Can you guess the IMPORTANT thing that is almost always missing from
> > your boastings about Larson yet?
>
> > Moe
>
> That you have yet to exhibit in your responses to my boastings that
> you have two braincells to rub together???
Ad hom noted.
I was referring to something Larson should be about if he is as he
pretends to be. Something that is consistently ABSENT from his
various TV and radio " interviews". I find it amusing that you don't
see the obvious. Like I said, even as a Pagan I can see it, and I'm
going by Christian theology teachings as a " guide".
(( Raises eyebrow and smirks)) For a supposed devout Christian, Larson
might as well be a Satanist, when you consider what is MISSING from
Larson's act.
Moe
TWellingfan
he needs an exorcism himself soon, A nonfiction book has been
published and among the stories therein is one where Larson gets
exposed inhis " exorcism".
http://www.amazon.com/Schoolmaster-Autobiography-Demonologist-ebook/dp/B004WDYOC6
Perhaps the Schoolmaster will send Larson to the corner with a dunce
cap....
Also there are a few developments regarding fraud Bobbie E. Larson
that may be made pubic sometime in the near future.
Moe
larsonomicon
> (( Raises eyebrow and smirks)) For a supposed devout Christian, Larson
> might as well be a Satanist, when you consider what is MISSING from
> Larson's act.
>
Why do you stalk him for decades?
larsonomicon
> Also there are a few developments regarding fraud Bobbie E. Larson
> that may be made pubic sometime in the near future.
>
>
> Moe
>
Really?
By you?
Interesting...
Greegor
Moe > E. Larson that may be made pubic sometime in the near future.
larsonomicon > Really?
larsonomicon >
larsonomicon > By you?
larsonomicon >
larsonomicon > Interesting...
Whether it's half truth or complete fabrication
it's the finest deception Moe can come up with.
Greegor
Moe > supposed devout Christian, Larson might
Moe > as well be a Satanist, when you consider
Moe > what is MISSING from Larson's act.
larsonomicon > Why do you stalk him for decades?
TWENTY SIX YEARS!
That's a long time to sustain such an obsession.
larsonomicon
Who really believes that Moe has the nads to come out and break
information on Bob?
She's a second hand stalker ftmp.
larsonomicon
One crazy lady!
Greegor
Moe > supposed devout Christian, Larson might
Moe > as well be a Satanist, when you consider
Moe > what is MISSING from Larson's act.
larsonomicon > Why do you stalk him for decades?
G > TWENTY SIX YEARS!
G > That's a long time to sustain such an obsession.
larsonomicon > One crazy lady!
Kent's position switched from strong and paying suporter
to netstalker and harasser within a short time and
without posting any big revelation about WHY he
changed in such an extreme way.
My theory is that Kent's "support" was just
posing to try to get some DIRT to play
a "GOTCHA" game.
Kent, Moe, Dan, Kim and others who have
been in their little netstalking tribe all have
tried such tactics. They seem to be obsessed
with their sneaky little "GOTCHA" game.
Dan sneaks into Family Rights groups to try
to cause trouble from inside, or else he just
lifts text and posts it elsewhere hoping to
score some "GOTCHA" points.
Kim befirended an opponent for a WHOLE YEAR
just to fish for "GOTCHA" dirt, but after all of
that effort and deception, she got nothing!
Kent's extreme and rapid switch from being
a PAID supporter of Bob Larson to joining
in on Moe's TWENTY SIX YEAR internet
campaign of stalking and harassing BL.
Moe's netstalking and harassment of Glen
can be seen as an attempt at a "GOTCHA"
game as well, since Moe was active with
an online TAPE TRADER GROUP and
Moe knowingly ordered a BOOTLEG tape
from Glen but then even AFTER eBay
sent her money back Moe kept griping
about COPYRIGHT law, while stalking
and harassing Glen for a DECADE.
I'm just saying that this little hyena pack
seems to be very obsessed about playing
this sort of "GOTCHA" game at great length.
Greegor
Moe > E. Larson that may be made pubic sometime in the near future.
larsonomicon > Really?
larsonomicon >
larsonomicon > By you?
larsonomicon >
larsonomicon > Interesting...
G > Whether it's half truth or complete fabrication
G > it's the finest deception Moe can come up with.
larsonomicon > Who really believes that Moe has the
larsonomicon > nads to come out and break
larsonomicon > information on Bob?
larsonomicon >
larsonomicon > She's a second hand stalker ftmp.
Nads? LOL
Moe is too butt ugly and too old for her nads to matter,
unless you're talking about the Nads hair removal product
http://cdn.edu-search.com/uploads/nads.jpg
http://www.legendsofamerica.com/photos-ghosts/HairyGuy.jpg
On the other hand I do not think Moe feels
restricted at all in regard to the lies and
garbage she posts on usenet.
larsonomicon
Explain plese, which one is Kim?
And where have Ted Kaldis and Ken Smith disappeared to?
Greegor
larsonomicon > Explain plese, which one is Kim?
She uses the nik LIT or Lost In Translation.
larsonomicon > And where have Ted Kaldis and Ken Smith disappeared to?
I don't know, but I bet that Kent can wear out allies as well as
enemies.
Ask Kent where they went and why!
KentMoe keep DREAMING that some opponent
got arrested and went to prison, etc.
They assert that when opponents leave, even
when I didn't post for a week!
That's S.O.P. for them.
Kent Wills
[...]
>> > I'm just saying that this little hyena pack
>> > seems to be very obsessed about playing
>> > this sort of "GOTCHA" game at great length.
>
>larsonomicon > Explain plese, which one is Kim?
>
>She uses the nik LIT or Lost In Translation.
>
Do you often have to explain to your socks who is who?
How very sad.
>larsonomicon > And where have Ted Kaldis and Ken Smith disappeared to?
>
>I don't know, but I bet that Kent can wear out allies as well as
>enemies.
>
Ken and I are still very good friends.
Ted and I never were friends, good or otherwise.
Next pathological lie, Greg.
>Ask Kent where they went and why!
I visited the blog yesterday. Both are still at it. They simply
chose to do it on the Cameron Brown Trial blog.
>
>KentMoe keep DREAMING that some opponent
>got arrested and went to prison, etc.
>
Which opponent does your mind claim? Oh wait, you give the
answer in the next sentence.
>They assert that when opponents leave, even
>when I didn't post for a week!
>
No one claimed you were arrested and went to prison.
But do prove either or both of us made such a claim. Link to
just one post from either of us making the claim that when you weren't
posting it was because you were arrested and went to prison.
Replies to any such posts will be acceptable.
Bar my just exposing yet another of your MANY pathological lies,
you'll post the link(s).
I'm waiting...
>That's S.O.P. for them.
I suppose having to address your nearly countless pathological
lies could be seen as SOP for us.
If you would just be honest, we wouldn't have to address them so
often. Sadly, as you have PROVED many, many times, the ONLY way you
can be honest intentionally is if you believe honesty will advance one
or more of your lies.
A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott "Piggly
Wiggly" Hanson (Greg states they are as believable as the comment that
water is wet):
"I am Bob Larson."
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson offering more proof that he is
as mentally ill as he presents.
Message-ID:
<df610804-da3b-4aa8...@cu4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>
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 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, Feb. 27, 2011:
SMALL CLAIMS ORIGINAL NOTICE
Comments: OPA $2805.04
COPIES TO PA
VERIFICATION OF ACCOUNT
JUDGEMENT DEFAULT
Comments: JUDGMENT AGAINST GREGORY HANSON FOR $2805.04
+ INTEREST AT 7.271% FROM 8/6/98 & $45.00 COSTS.
Comments: NOTE OF GARN/NOTE TO DEFT SERV 9/24/98 BY WCSD
TO SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT (ED POLKERS) FOR GREG HANSON
FEES $35.60
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson has a Garnishment order against
him. There is nothing to even suggest any of the money legally owed
has been paid. The SoL on the order has likely expired, but Greg still
can't risk getting a job due to it.
Greegor
> At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> >> > I'm just saying that this little hyena pack
> >> > seems to be very obsessed about playing
> >> > this sort of "GOTCHA" game at great length.
>
> >larsonomicon > Explain plese, which one is Kim?
>
> >She uses the nik LIT or Lost In Translation.
>
> Do you often have to explain to your socks who is who?
> How very sad.
>
> >larsonomicon > And where have Ted Kaldis and Ken Smith disappeared to?
>
> >I don't know, but I bet that Kent can wear out allies as well as
> >enemies.
>
> Ken and I are still very good friends.
> Ted and I never were friends, good or otherwise.
> Next pathological lie, Greg.
What you apparently thought was a disproof
actually supported what I said, Kent.
I am sure you wear out allies as well as enemies.
They're NOT posting!
Does it have anything to do with those
months when you posted 4000+ messages
each month?
G > Ask Kent where they went and why!
KBW > I visited the blog yesterday. Both are still at it. They
simply
KBW > chose to do it on the Cameron Brown Trial blog.
You STILL haven't explained the REAL reason
that Ted Kaldis hates you, Kent!
Why not?
Kent Wills
>On Jun 12, 4:42 am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> >> > I'm just saying that this little hyena pack
>> >> > seems to be very obsessed about playing
>> >> > this sort of "GOTCHA" game at great length.
>>
>> >larsonomicon > Explain plese, which one is Kim?
>>
>> >She uses the nik LIT or Lost In Translation.
>>
>> Do you often have to explain to your socks who is who?
>> How very sad.
>>
>> >larsonomicon > And where have Ted Kaldis and Ken Smith disappeared to?
>>
>> >I don't know, but I bet that Kent can wear out allies as well as
>> >enemies.
>>
>> Ken and I are still very good friends.
>> Ted and I never were friends, good or otherwise.
>> Next pathological lie, Greg.
>
>What you apparently thought was a disproof
>actually supported what I said, Kent.
>
Not to the mentally sound.
YMMV.
>I am sure you wear out allies as well as enemies.
>
You're not sure of that, since you know it's not true.
>They're NOT posting!
>
Which, as I show above, has nothing to do with me.
You've failed to prove their leaving was related to me in any way
shape or form.
Since the claim is another of your MANY pathological LIES, you
can't.
>Does it have anything to do with those
>months when you posted 4000+ messages
>each month?
Projecting your Usenet addiction only servers to further PROVE
you really are as mentally ill as you present.
At the time I write this, Google claims you have 274 posts for
the month of June, 2008. And this doesn't count your sock puppets.
I am only able to manage 144. I don't make use of sock puppets.
Let your shrink, whatever his/her title, know that you are
COMPELLED to live your life on Usenet. S/He may be able to help you
overcome the addiction you have.
>
>G > Ask Kent where they went and why!
>
>KBW > I visited the blog yesterday. Both are still at it. They
>simply
>KBW > chose to do it on the Cameron Brown Trial blog.
>
>You STILL haven't explained the REAL reason
>that Ted Kaldis hates you, Kent!
>
Who claims Ted hates me? We're certainly not friends, but hate?
Please provide your evidence that Ted actually hates me. Unless
I've just exposed ANOTHER of your MAY pathological lies, you will do
so.
I know you won't. You'll try to distract from the TRUTH in my
challenge. The TRUTH that another of your MANY lies has been exposed.
>Why not?
Since you alone are aware of this hate, and this is the first
time you've brought it to me (unless your sock did -- I don't see the
posts from your sock), there would be no reason to explain it.
Greegor
Could you please diagram that logic?
Which is it? Can it be both?
larsonomicon
Sure is.
larsonomicon
>>larsonomicon > Explain plese, which one is Kim?
>>
>>She uses the nik LIT or Lost In Translation.
>>
>
> Do you often have to explain to your socks who is who?
> How very sad.
Oh is she a sock too Kent?
How about this man?
larsonomicon
> You STILL haven't explained the REAL reason
> that Ted Kaldis hates you, Kent!
>
> Why not?
>
Great question.
larsonomicon
> You've failed to prove their leaving was related to me in any way
> shape or form.
Why did Ted Klaldis leave, KEnt?
larsonomicon
Reverse polish notation?
Greegor
G > She uses the nik LIT or Lost In Translation.
KBW > Do you often have to explain to your socks who is who?
KBW > How very sad.
larsonomicon > Oh is she a sock too Kent?
larsonomicon > How about this man?
http://www.facebook.com/people/Theodore-A-Kaldis/1286363105
vs:
http://5magazine.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/img_0271.jpg
G > KentMoe keep DREAMING that some opponent
G > got arrested and went to prison, etc.
G > They assert that when opponents leave, even
G > when I didn't post for a week!
G > That's S.O.P. for them.
larsonomicon > Sure is.
Greegor
G > Could you please diagram that logic?
G > Which is it? Can it be both?
larsonomicon > Reverse polish notation?
I thought a Venn Diagram might help.
larsonomicon
Lol.
TWellingfan
Projection noted.
Done masturbating with your " sock" yet greg? This from a 51 year
old male who abused his mentally ill ex-wife and abused a female child
for tow years while living in her mother's home until the child was
taken away from the dangerous living conditions in the home at age 7.
The same guy who for years hasn't done squat to help the woman he's
leeching off of to regain custody of her daughter.
The point still remains that the book I mentioned does expose Bob
Larson in one chapter.
You can still do your BS ad hom attacking me all you wish, I consider
it with the same lack of credibility from a male who obsessively
stalks and posts online and whose severe mental problems compels him
to lie at every opportunity.That is, you have no credibility
whatsoever.
As for KSICk-o's liitle boasting pronouncements, the phrase "don't
count your chickens until they hatch" comes to mind.
Moe
TWellingfan
> On Jun 12, 4:42 am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > [...]
>
> > >> > I'm just saying that this little hyena pack
> > >> > seems to be very obsessed about playing
> > >> > this sort of "GOTCHA" game at great length.
>
> > >larsonomicon > Explain plese, which one is Kim?
>
> > >She uses the nik LIT or Lost In Translation.
>
> > Do you often have to explain to your socks who is who?
> > How very sad.
>
> > >larsonomicon > And where have Ted Kaldis and Ken Smith disappeared to?
>
> > >I don't know, but I bet that Kent can wear out allies as well as
> > >enemies.
>
> > Ken and I are still very good friends.
> > Ted and I never were friends, good or otherwise.
> > Next pathological lie, Greg.
>
> What you apparently thought was a disproof
> actually supported what I said, Kent.
>
> I am sure you wear out allies as well as enemies.
>
> They're NOT posting!
Ken Smith doesn't post on usenet anymore because Usenet is a dying
forum and he has better things to do with his life now. He made an
announcement some time ago he was closing his attention on Bob Larson.
Moe
larsonomicon
> The point still remains that the book I mentioned does expose Bob
> Larson in one chapter.
What do you personally get out of stalking Bob, Moe?
You must have a very barren social life to rely on this as your mainstay.
larsonomicon
> Ken Smith doesn't post on usenet anymore because Usenet is a dying
> forum and he has better things to do with his life now.
Really?
What was wrong with his life then? Did it have something to do with the
fact that stalking Bob prevented him from becoming a lawyer?
Kent Wills
Context restored.
>>>What you apparently thought was a disproof
>>>actually supported what I said, Kent.
>>>
>>
>> Not to the mentally sound.
>> YMMV.
>>
Greg?
>>>I am sure you wear out allies as well as enemies.
>>>
>>
>> You're not sure of that, since you know it's not true.
>>
>>>They're NOT posting!
>>>
>>
>> Which, as I show above, has nothing to do with me.
>> You've failed to prove their leaving was related to me in any way
>>shape or form.
>> Since the claim is another of your MANY pathological LIES, you
>>can't.
>>
Thank you, Greg, for the tacit admission, by YOUR standards, that
the claim was and is another of your MANY pathological lies.
>>>Does it have anything to do with those
>>>>months when you posted 4000+ messages
>>>each month?
>>
>> Projecting your Usenet addiction only servers to further PROVE
>>you really are as mentally ill as you present.
>> At the time I write this, Google claims you have 274 posts for
>>the month of June, 2008. And this doesn't count your sock puppets.
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=mgszwBMAAAAJ4Z4fqvy5hJxO8Uq0AVoKWMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww
>>
>>
>> I am only able to manage 144. I don't make use of sock puppets.
>>
>>http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?enc_user=tO2J8xIAAAD-FV_7I-6E0McpeoqRe5_P8rhlH0Pnl47z4AZhN98BFg
>>
>>
>> Let your shrink, whatever his/her title, know that you are
>>COMPELLED to live your life on Usenet. S/He may be able to help you
>>overcome the addiction you have.
>>
Greg?
>>>
>>>G > Ask Kent where they went and why!
>>>
>>>KBW > I visited the blog yesterday. Both are still at it. They
>>>simply
>>>KBW > chose to do it on the Cameron Brown Trial blog.
>>>
>>>You STILL haven't explained the REAL reason
>>>that Ted Kaldis hates you, Kent!
>>>
>>
>> Who claims Ted hates me? We're certainly not friends, but hate?
>> Please provide your evidence that Ted actually hates me. Unless
>>I've just exposed ANOTHER of your MAY pathological lies, you will do
>>so.
>> I know you won't. You'll try to distract from the TRUTH in my
>>challenge. The TRUTH that another of your MANY lies has been exposed.
>>
Thank you, Greg, for the tacit admission, by YOUR standards, that
I exposed another of your MANY pathological lies.
>>>Why not?
>>
>> Since you alone are aware of this hate, and this is the first
>>time you've brought it to me (unless your sock did -- I don't see the
>>posts from your sock), there would be no reason to explain it.
>>
>
>Could you please diagram that logic?
You presented another of your MANY drug induced (unless you lied)
pathological lies. Specifically that Ted hates me.
No one else has presented such a claim, ever.
This means you are the only person aware of this phantom hate.
That you alone are aware of it should not come as a surprise to
anyone. Your continued use and abuse of illegal drugs (unless you
lied) causes you to be aware of so many things no one else is.
Anyway, before your drug addled (unless you lied) claim, no one
had asked, requested, or demanded I explain away this phantom hate. A
hate that exists solely because you continue to use and abuse illegal
drugs (unless you lied).
[Cue Gregory Scott Hanson running away to HIDE from the TRUTH I've
presented, or his attempts to distract from it. He will NEVER address
the TRUTH.]
Greegor
KBW > to distract from the TRUTH I present.
All of Kent's truth could fit in a decimal point.
Kent is a compulsive liar.
Greegor
> forum and he has better things to do with his life now. He made an
> announcement some time ago he was closing his attention on Bob Larson.
Damn that man.
He should have kept on raving as part of your
TWENTY SIX YEAR campaign of stalking
and net harassment, right Moe?
LOL
Greegor
I have never heard of an plaintif in a civil court suit
case being directed to get a psychiatric evaluation.
I'm sure it happens though.
Why exactly did the court direct Smith to get
a psychiatric evaluation?
Was it some of the pretzel logic in his pleadings to the court?
Was it making accusations that were insane?
Barring somebody from ever being an attorney
usually involves VERY unscrupulous behavior.
Kent Wills
>On Jun 12, 11:49 pm, larsonomicon wrote:
>> TWellingfan wrote:
>> > Ken Smith doesn't post on usenet anymore because Usenet is a dying
>> > forum and he has better things to do with his life now.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> What was wrong with his life then? Did it have something to do with the
>> fact that stalking Bob prevented him from becoming a lawyer?
>
>I have never heard of an plaintif in a civil court suit
>case being directed to get a psychiatric evaluation.
How DESPERATE are you, Greg, to distract from the TRUTH?
>
>I'm sure it happens though.
>
>Why exactly did the court direct Smith to get
>a psychiatric evaluation?
>
When has any court done such?
Bar another of your MANY drug induced (unless you lied)
pathological LIES having been exposed, you'll offer a cite for the
court, maybe even the case, you mean.
Since this is yet another of your MANY drug induced (unless you
lied) pathological LIES, you'll offer nothing. You can't.
>Was it some of the pretzel logic in his pleadings to the court?
>
>Was it making accusations that were insane?
>
>Barring somebody from ever being an attorney
>usually involves VERY unscrupulous behavior.
Who has been so barred? I know Ken Smith has not.
Who do you mean?
Kent Wills
>> Ken Smith doesn't post on usenet anymore because Usenet is a dying
>> forum and he has better things to do with his life now. He made an
>> announcement some time ago he was closing his attention on Bob Larson.
>
>Damn that man.
Why? Just because he is able to move on with his life while you
are not?
Let your shrink know about this at your next session, Greg.
Kent Wills
Context restored.
>>>Could you please diagram that logic?
>>
>> You presented another of your MANY drug induced (unless you lied)
>>pathological lies. Specifically that Ted hates me.
>> No one else has presented such a claim, ever.
>> This means you are the only person aware of this phantom hate.
>>That you alone are aware of it should not come as a surprise to
>>anyone. Your continued use and abuse of illegal drugs (unless you
>>lied) causes you to be aware of so many things no one else is.
>> Anyway, before your drug addled (unless you lied) claim, no one
>>had asked, requested, or demanded I explain away this phantom hate. A
>>hate that exists solely because you continue to use and abuse illegal
>>drugs (unless you lied).
>>
>>[Cue Gregory Scott Hanson running away to HIDE from the TRUTH I've
>>presented, or his attempts to distract from it. He will NEVER address
>>the TRUTH.]
>>
>
>All of Kent's truth could fit in a decimal point.
>
>Kent is a compulsive liar.
You follow instructions very well. Since you have NO will of
your own, this isn't as exceptional as it could be.
Poor widdle Gweggie. How does it feel to know I can make you do
as I command? How does it feel to KNOW you can't stop yourself from
following my commands, orders and suggestions?
kensmithiscool
> On Jun 12, 11:49 pm, larsonomicon wrote:
>
> > TWellingfan wrote:
> > > Ken Smith doesn't post on usenet anymore because Usenet is a dying
> > > forum and he has better things to do with his life now.
>
> > Really?
>
> > What was wrong with his life then? Did it have something to do with the
> > fact that stalking Bob prevented him from becoming a lawyer?
>
> I have never heard of an plaintif in a civil court suit
> case being directed to get a psychiatric evaluation.
I didn't either, until Kenny showed us that yes, it is possible...
> I'm sure it happens though.
>
> Why exactly did the court direct Smith to get
> a psychiatric evaluation?
>
> Was it some of the pretzel logic in his pleadings to the court?
>
> Was it making accusations that were insane?
>
> Barring somebody from ever being an attorney
> usually involves VERY unscrupulous behavior.
Kenny received the unfortunate news that he would not gain admittance
to the Colorado Bar Association -- i.e., denial of a law license -- in
January of 2000 :(
Kenny has stated on the record that he believes the Colorado Supreme
Court denied him a license to practice law "for no reason" -- but
that based upon interviews with the Board of Law Examiners, Kenny
became convinced that the denial stemmed from his criticism of BL and
BLM on a now-defunct web site that was littered with misinformation,
disinformation and outright lies.
I have told Kenny that had he stayed with the Lord, gotten over his
anger toward God -- an anger he has carried since an adolescent --
this all could have been avoided, and that his time invested in law
school wouldn't have been pissed away. Did he listen to me?
Kenny was denied admittance to a law license due to questions
surrounding his judicial ethics in relation to his legal rendezvous
with BL. Kenny apparently had the cheek to profess to the Examiners'
Board that he had no apprehension whatsoever with regard to misusing
the discovery process to collect information related to BLM in which
Kenny published -- and further stated that he would be prone to do so
again!
So as part of its reverence, the Board requested Kenny to submit to a
psychiatric examination. They did so to assess specifically to
determine if Kenny is ethically, morally and mentally fit to practice
law in the State of Colorado. Kenny refused.
In a serious snit, Kenny responded by filing a suit against (a) the
Colorado Supreme Court, (b) the members of the Supreme Court, (c) the
Examiners' Board and (c) its members. The suit was summarily
dismissed. But he did channel his foaming at the mouth rage by
opening http://www.corruptcourt.com without incident. I wish Kenny
would have written about his lawsuit against BL, and how he had to
drop it since his pockets weren't deep enough to keep it alive.
Greegor
KSIC > to the Examiners' Board that he had no
KSIC > apprehension whatsoever with regard to
KSIC > misusing the discovery process to collect
KSIC > information related to BLM in which Kenny
KSIC > published -- and further stated that he
KSIC > would be prone to do so again!
KSIC >
KSIC > So as part of its reverence, the Board
KSIC > requested Kenny to submit to a
KSIC > psychiatric examination. They did so
KSIC > to assess specifically to determine if
KSIC > Kenny is ethically, morally and
KSIC > mentally fit to practice law in the
KSIC > State of Colorado. Kenny refused.
KSIC >
KSIC > In a serious snit, Kenny responded by
KSIC > filing a suit against (a) the Colorado
KSIC > Supreme Court, (b) the members of
KSIC > the Supreme Court, (c) the Examiners'
KSIC > Board and (c) its members. The suit
KSIC > was summarily dismissed. But he
KSIC > did channel his foaming at the mouth
KSIC > rage by opening
http://www.corruptcourt.com
KSIC > without incident. I wish Kenny would
KSIC > have written about his lawsuit against
KSIC > BL, and how he had to drop it since his
KSIC > pockets weren't deep enough to keep
KSIC > it alive.
Being "angry at God" is one thing but openly
declaring that he would abuse the discovery
process to stalk BL was idiotic, and sounds
much like the the Aspergers culture on usenet.
Most of them are socially awkward.
Ken Smith certainly had to have something
wrong with him to think he could get away
with openly abusing discovery that way.
Greegor
Moe > I mentioned does expose Bob
Moe > Larson in one chapter.
larsonomicon > What do you personally get out of
larsonomicon > stalking Bob, Moe? You must have
larsonomicon > a very barren social life to rely on
larsonomicon > this as your mainstay.
I bet Moe is barren and butt ugly, likely post menopausal.
Her claims about a boyfriend are almost silly at her age.
Kent Wills
<kensmit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 13, 9:40 am, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Jun 12, 11:49 pm, larsonomicon wrote:
>>
>> > TWellingfan wrote:
>> > > Ken Smith doesn't post on usenet anymore because Usenet is a dying
>> > > forum and he has better things to do with his life now.
>>
>> > Really?
>>
>> > What was wrong with his life then? Did it have something to do with the
>> > fact that stalking Bob prevented him from becoming a lawyer?
>>
>> I have never heard of an plaintif in a civil court suit
>> case being directed to get a psychiatric evaluation.
>
>
>
>I didn't either, until Kenny showed us that yes, it is possible...
>
>
The problem with your demon of LYING being in charge of your life
is that no court issued such an order.
But feel free to prove any did.
>
>> I'm sure it happens though.
>>
>> Why exactly did the court direct Smith to get
>> a psychiatric evaluation?
>>
>> Was it some of the pretzel logic in his pleadings to the court?
>>
>> Was it making accusations that were insane?
>>
>> Barring somebody from ever being an attorney
>> usually involves VERY unscrupulous behavior.
>
>
>Kenny received the unfortunate news that he would not gain admittance
>to the Colorado Bar Association -- i.e., denial of a law license -- in
>January of 2000 :(
>
>Kenny has stated on the record that he believes the Colorado Supreme
>Court denied him a license to practice law "for no reason" -- but
Please link to this record.
>that based upon interviews with the Board of Law Examiners, Kenny
>became convinced that the denial stemmed from his criticism of BL and
>BLM on a now-defunct web site that was littered with misinformation,
>disinformation and outright lies.
>
Save for the parodies, everything was cited by your own ministry
documents, IRS documents and/or former staff claims.
>I have told Kenny that had he stayed with the Lord, gotten over his
>anger toward God -- an anger he has carried since an adolescent --
>this all could have been avoided, and that his time invested in law
>school wouldn't have been pissed away. Did he listen to me?
>
That demon of lying you adore really has a strong hold on you,
huh?
>Kenny was denied admittance to a law license due to questions
>surrounding his judicial ethics in relation to his legal rendezvous
>with BL.
Referring to yourself in the third person is not the actions of
the mentally stable, Bob.
>Kenny apparently had the cheek to profess to the Examiners'
>Board that he had no apprehension whatsoever with regard to misusing
>the discovery process to collect information related to BLM in which
>Kenny published -- and further stated that he would be prone to do so
>again!
>
Your demon of lying is hard at work once again.
Ken did nothing wrong, as you well know. Because he did nothing
wrong, he would do it again.
Exposing you for the fraud and con man you were, and are, can't,
to the rational mind, be seen as wrong.
>So as part of its reverence, the Board requested Kenny to submit to a
>psychiatric examination. They did so to assess specifically to
>determine if Kenny is ethically, morally and mentally fit to practice
>law in the State of Colorado. Kenny refused.
>
He did not refuse. He's taken the mental health exam and was
found to be, paraphrasing, boringly normal.
>In a serious snit, Kenny responded by filing a suit against (a) the
>Colorado Supreme Court, (b) the members of the Supreme Court, (c) the
>Examiners' Board and (c) its members. The suit was summarily
>dismissed.
By one of the judges named in the suit.
>But he did channel his foaming at the mouth rage by
>opening http://www.corruptcourt.com without incident. I wish Kenny
>would have written about his lawsuit against BL, and how he had to
>drop it since his pockets weren't deep enough to keep it alive.
>
Ken was, and is, very open about the fact that he couldn't afford
to continue the suit against you.
What did the judge state when you wanted Ken to pay your legal
fees? Are you man enough to admit the TRUTH, or do your demons (who
believes Lar$on has only the demon of lying?) make it too difficult
for you?
--
It's hard to relate to this high-tech world when your kid says her
Lego Toys need more memory.
TWellingfan
Jealous, cyber stalker?
>
> LOL
TWellingfan
> KSIC > Kenny apparently had the cheek to profess
> KSIC > to the Examiners' Board that he had no
> KSIC > apprehension whatsoever with regard to
> KSIC > misusing the discovery process to collect
> KSIC > information related to BLM in which Kenny
> KSIC > published -- and further stated that he
> KSIC > would be prone to do so again!
> KSIC >
> KSIC > So as part of its reverence, the Board
> KSIC > requested Kenny to submit to a
> KSIC > psychiatric examination. They did so
> KSIC > to assess specifically to determine if
> KSIC > Kenny is ethically, morally and
> KSIC > mentally fit to practice law in the
> KSIC > State of Colorado. Kenny refused.
> KSIC >
> KSIC > In a serious snit, Kenny responded by
> KSIC > filing a suit against (a) the Colorado
> KSIC > Supreme Court, (b) the members of
> KSIC > the Supreme Court, (c) the Examiners'
> KSIC > Board and (c) its members. The suit
> KSIC > was summarily dismissed. But he
> KSIC > did channel his foaming at the mouth
> KSIC > without incident. I wish Kenny would
> KSIC > have written about his lawsuit against
> KSIC > BL, and how he had to drop it since his
> KSIC > pockets weren't deep enough to keep
> KSIC > it alive.
>
> Being "angry at God" is one thing but openly
> declaring that he would abuse the discovery
> process to stalk BL was idiotic, and sounds
> much like the the Aspergers culture on usenet.
>
> Most of them are socially awkward.
>
> Ken Smith certainly had to have something
> wrong with him to think he could get away
> with openly abusing discovery that way.
For someone who was supposedly "had something wrong " with him he sure
managed to collect various PROOF to reveal to the public what Larson
actually was ( and still is BTW).
For a coward to have Ken Smith's name as part of his usenet nym
indicates that the REAL Ken Smith was not a nut case and did impact
Bob Larson's con enough to have this guy still use his name after all
these years. KSIC-ko as usual for him, omits the WHOLE story about
Ken Smith because the TRUTH is far more damaging to Bobbie E.Larson
than the heavily edited and slanted version KSIC posted. KSIC forgot
to mention that Larson sued Smith but lost his lawsuit in a court of
law.
One of the factors that keeps Larson in the fringes of whacko
Christianity where anything he tries to get the vanity attention from
the mainstream he desperately needs always falls flat is that Larson's
reputation among his own Christian bretherin is lo indeed, so lo he
holds his " conferences" in hotel meeting rooms instead of churches.
And web sites like this one doesn't help matters:
http://www.apostasywatch.com/Wolves/WolfReports/BobLarson/tabid/107/Default.aspx
Or this one:
http://www.apologeticsindex.org/l42.html
The truth about Ken Smith vs. Bob Larson is not something KSIC wants
to be shown, so he's doing a little credibility bashing just in case
those media outlets he's bragging that are paying attention to Larson
don't do some digging and find out they've been lied to by Larson and
his cult followers.
Wait, that's too late in one case (( smirks)...
Moe
Greegor
That usually means it's all proveable online.
I wonder if that's the case....
kensmithiscool
> >Kenny has stated on the record that he believes the Colorado Supreme
> >Court denied him a license to practice law "for no reason" -- but
>
> Please link to this record.
To the best of my knowledge, it's no longer available to the public.
But since you claim to
be good friends with Kenny, then you should have no problem asking him
for it yourself.
That is... if he will even take your call. I would guess that Kenny
has a copy of that
Denver newspaper piece somewhere in his souvenir drawer :)
> Your demon of lying is hard at work once again.
> Ken did nothing wrong, as you well know. Because he did nothing
> wrong, he would do it again.
Yet the Colorado Supremes and the Examiners' Board didn't see it that
way. I am not
surprised that a garage burglar from Iowa would see it differently
from the right side of
the law. . .
> He did not refuse.
Sure he did, garage-boy. Why do you think he sued the Colorado
Supreme Court and the
Examiners' Board?
>He's taken the mental health exam and was
> found to be, paraphrasing, boringly normal.
Perhaps you might like to explain why Kenny is not a member of the
Colorado Bar?
Also, you did forget to explain that the "boringly normal" examination
was conducted by an
examiner of *his* choice. And as you know, this exercise in futility
was unacceptable to
pleasing the court.
> What did the judge state when you wanted Ken to pay your legal
> fees?
My legal fees?! Oh, you mean BL. Now, are you talking about the
lower court judge or the
Court of Appeals?
>Are you man enough to admit the TRUTH, or do your demons (who
> believes Lar$on has only the demon of lying?) make it too difficult
> for you?
Are you still sour over the fact that your dirty little secret in Iowa
as a multiple
convicted felon slipped out of the bag? Did you ever pay that $2, 000
fine to the State of
Iowa? Tsk. Tsk.
God Bless!
Greegor
> Are you still sour over the fact that your dirty
> little secret in Iowa as a multiple convicted
> felon slipped out of the bag? Did you ever
> pay that $2, 000 fine to the State of Iowa? Tsk. Tsk.
Kent had YEARS to pay off a few thousand
under his conditions of parole, and didn't.
The parole authorities filed to revoke him
but just weeks before Kent's scheduled
revocation hearing Kent's FOLKS paid
the few thousand so Kent wouldn't be
revoked and sent to prison for 10 years.
The payment was made something like
3 weeks ahead of the scheduled revocation
hearing, and the hearing was canceled.
The online record under "FILINGS"
confirms this.
Knowing the hearing was cancelled,
Kent actually ramped up taunting for
others to show up at the hearing.
Kent's opponents had already seen online
that the hearing was cancelled, and merely
laughed.
Kent apparently thought this charade had
embarassed his opponents and brought it
up several times since.
Moe made excuses for Ken Smith by posting:
Moe > Ken Smith doesn't post on usenet anymore
Moe > because Usenet is a dying forum and he
Moe > has better things to do with his life now.
Moe > He made an announcement some time
Moe > ago he was closing his attention on Bob Larson.
G > Damn that man.
G > He should have kept on raving as part of your
G > TWENTY SIX YEAR campaign of stalking
G > and net harassment, right Moe?
Moe > Jealous, cyber stalker?
You're a psychopath, Maureen.
larsonomicon
>>
>>Why exactly did the court direct Smith to get
>>a psychiatric evaluation?
>>
>
> When has any court done such?
To be accurate it was the Colorado Bar, not a court. But you know that
Kent, so cut the charade act.
larsonomicon
> At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Ken Smith doesn't post on usenet anymore because Usenet is a dying
>>> forum and he has better things to do with his life now. He made an
>>> announcement some time ago he was closing his attention on Bob
Larson.
>>
>>Damn that man.
>
> Why? Just because he is able to move on with his life while you
> are not?
>
But not as a lawyer, he forfeited that career when he stalked Bob.
larsonomicon
>>All of Kent's truth could fit in a decimal point.
>>
>>Kent is a compulsive liar.
>
> You follow instructions very well. Since you have NO will of
> your own, this isn't as exceptional as it could be.
> Poor widdle Gweggie. How does it feel to know I can make you do
> as I command? How does it feel to KNOW you can't stop yourself from
> following my commands, orders and suggestions?
>
Wow kent, that's really kind of "Pinky & the Brain" evilspeak of you...
larsonomicon
He could explain why his dumpster diving at the ministry forced a
career change for him.
larsonomicon
> Referring to yourself in the third person is not the actions of
> the mentally stable, Bob.
>
Prove that he is Bob.
larsonomicon
You too, stalker.
larsonomicon
> The truth about Ken Smith vs. Bob Larson is not something KSIC wants
> to be shown, so he's doing a little credibility bashing just in case
Ken Smith the dumpster diver had to forgo his law career for refusing a
psych eval.
larsonomicon
http://www.laborlawtalk.com/archive/index.php/t-107262.html
Theodore A. Kaldis
01-13-2005, 07:04 AM
As you can see from this document:
<http://mywebpages.comcast.net/kaldis/Order.htm>
it is now 5 years to the day since Ken Smith was denied a licence to
practise
law in Colorado. And under the Rules Governing Admission To The
[Colorado]
Bar:
<http://www.coloradosupremecourt.com/BLE/Forms/Rules.htm>
The latter part of Rule 201.12 (1) reads: "Upon reapplication, the
applicant
also shall complete successfully the written examination for admission
to
practice, even though the applicant has previously passed such an
examination
in Colorado."
Unfortunately for Ken, the application deadline for the next Bar exam
(to be
administered 22-23 February, 2005) has already passed. The next test
that
Ken will be able to take will be administered on 26-27 July, 2005, and
the
application deadline for that exam is 2 May, 2005. See:
<http://www.coloradosupremecourt.com/BLE/Exams.asp>
So Ken needs to get on the ball. But nevertheless, according to some of
the
other rules governing admission to the bar:
Rule 201.12 (1) says: "Upon reapplication, the applicant shall have the
burden of showing to the Bar Committee by a preponderance of the
evidence the
applicant's fitness to practice as prescribed by these rules."
Rule 201.6 (1) says: "Applicants must demonstrate that they are
mentally
stable and morally and ethically qualified for admission."
Rule 201.6 (2) says: The Bar Committee may require further evidence of
an
applicant's mental stability and moral and ethical qualifications
reasonably
related to the standards for admission as it deems appropriate,
including a
current mental status examination. Costs for any mental status
examination
or for obtaining any additional information required by the Bar
Committee
shall be borne by the applicant."
So Ken might STILL have the same problem as from the last time he stood
before the Bar Examiners to overcome. Accordingly, my advice to him is
to
cooperate fully with the Bar Examiners, and accept all their
recommenations
and requests with alacrity and cheerfulness. And maybe this time, he
just
MIGHT get a licence to practise law.
--
Theodore A. Kaldis
kal...@worldnet.att.net
Kent Wills
01-13-2005, 01:54 PM
For reasons I don't want to explore, on Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:04:48
-0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
As you can see from this document:
[...]
Theodore A. Kaldis suffers from Obsessive Compulsive Disorder.
Kent
--
Nie'se schlect sim'wa
Kent Wills
01-13-2005, 01:54 PM
For reasons I don't want to explore, on Thu, 13 Jan 2005 08:07:06
-0800, "Theodore A. Kaldis" <kal...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
Ken may apply online here:
<http://www.coloradosupremecourt.com/BLE/Forms/AppQuestionnaire.rtf>
Where will you apply for the mental health care you clearly and
desperately need?
Kent
--
When cryptography is outlawed,
bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
Ken Smith
01-15-2005, 09:56 PM
Theodore A. Kaldis wrote:
Jeffrey Graham wrote:
Theodore A. Kaldis wroteKen may apply online here:And if he's approved,
he can sue your *** raggedy ... For what? I've only made statements of
fact, or else expressed my opinion.
I could do it right now; the only impediment is logistical.
California recognizes both per se libel and libel by innuendo, and as
such, the kind of defamation Ted is engaging in actionable without
proof
of damages. And Ted has graciously admitted that the mere fact that a
government agent accuses you of anything, without more, is not proof of
the accusation. Accordingly, he can't hide behind the fact that the bar
demanded that I consent to a fishing expedition if I chose to ream him
a
new ******* in court.
larsonomicon
http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2005/05SA238.pdf2
But wait..there's more!
From last year even:
larsonomicon
Oh yes she is.
kensmithiscool
> For someone who was supposedly "had something wrong " with him he sure
> managed to collect various PROOF to reveal to the public what Larson
> actually was ( and still is BTW).
Truth be told, BL came out smelling like a rose. That particular
witch-hunt against BL is just one glaring example of the enemy's
agenda against the mission of the Ministry. Take a look around.
Have you visited the SFC? It really is breathtaking.
As the BLFCult learned to its chagrin, when one door closes for BL, 5
more open. Now, care to explain why KS isn't a member of the Colorado
Bar Association? You have the floor. . .
> KSIC forgot
> to mention that Larson sued Smith but lost his lawsuit in a court of
> law.
It really isn't worth mentioning, since the Court of Appeals decision
didn't harm BL one scintilla :)
> One of the factors that keeps Larson in the fringes of whacko
> Christianity where anything he tries to get the vanity attention from
> the mainstream he desperately needs always falls flat is that Larson's
> reputation among his own Christian bretherin is lo indeed, so lo he
> holds his " conferences" in hotel meeting rooms instead of churches.
As does Pastor Rod Parsley and many, many others. Those who are in
serious need of deliverance more than likely won't step foot inside a
church. They just won't do it! They're more comfortable in an
environment like an average conference room without the plush pews and
the pioused preacher handing out platitudes.
Oh yes, for those of you in the Sunshine State, in the Lakeland area,
that's Lakeland, Florida. . . BL will be at Ignited Church on November
17th. Mark your calendars for an exciting night!
> The truth about Ken Smith vs. Bob Larson is not something KSIC wants
> to be shown, so he's doing a little credibility bashing just in case
> those media outlets he's bragging that are paying attention to Larson
> don't do some digging and find out they've been lied to by Larson and
> his cult followers.
>
Hey! The future is looking bright -- gotta wear shades :) Where are
your shades Maureen?
Greegor
> Greegor wrote:
> > Kent denied Ken Smith's bizarre legal actions and troubles.
>
> > That usually means it's all proveable online.
>
> > I wonder if that's the case....
>
>
> But wait..there's more!
>
> From last year even:
http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2010/07/09-1503.pdf
Kent and Moe:
Will you acknowledge what the Judge wrote in this opinion?
Or will you DENT what it says and it's meaning?
Greegor
> Kent Wills wrote:
>
> >>> Ken Smith doesn't post on usenet anymore because Usenet is a dying
> >>> forum and he has better things to do with his life now. He made an
> >>> announcement some time ago he was closing his attention on Bob
> Larson.
>
> >>Damn that man.
>
> > Why? Just because he is able to move on with his life while you
> > are not?
>
> But not as a lawyer, he forfeited that career when he stalked Bob.
Would you want a lawyer defending you that is so
dumb that they thought they could get away with
abusing discovery process to stalk and harass
a televangelist they were netstalking?
Kent Wills
Context restored.
>>>Kenny apparently had the cheek to profess to the Examiners'
>Kent denied Ken Smith's bizarre legal actions and troubles.
>
I did no such thing.
But do prove I did. I restored the context of the post so that
you wouldn't have to seek out anything.
>That usually means it's all proveable online.
>
I've just proved another of your MANY drug induced (unless you
lied) pathological lies. That I've done just this sort of thing over
and over is provable on-line.
>I wonder if that's the case....
Since I've not denied it, it probably is.
Kent Wills
The judge did write it.
Why are you OBSESSED with Ken Smith? You've never had any
contact with the man, yet you are devoting so much of your time to
him. Do you honestly think yours is the behavior of the mentally
sound?
Will you be OBSESSED with him for as long as you have been with a
man named Glen? You claimed you've been obsessed with Glen for more
than 10 years.
It's so sad that you truly are as mentally ill as you present
on-line. It's NOT an act.
Let your mental health care professional, no matter his/her
title, know about your most recent OBSESSION.
Greegor
G > That usually means it's all proveable online.
G > I wonder if that's the case....
http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2005/05SA
larsonomicon > But wait..there's more!
larsonomicon > From last year even:
http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2010/07/09-1503.pdf
G > Kent and Moe:
G > Will you acknowledge what the Judge wrote in this opinion?
G > Or will you DENY what it says and it's meaning?
KBW > The judge did write it.
Kent barely and begrudgingly acknowledged it!
How about you Moe?
kensmithiscool
> At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >On Jun 14, 6:27 pm, larsonomicon wrote:
> >> Greegor wrote:
> >> > Kent denied Ken Smith's bizarre legal actions and troubles.
>
> >> > That usually means it's all proveable online.
>
> >> > I wonder if that's the case....
>
> >>http://www.courts.state.co.us/Courts/Supreme_Court/opinions/2005/05SA...
>
> >> But wait..there's more!
>
> >> From last year even:
>
> >http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2010/07/09-1503.pdf
>
> >Kent and Moe:
> >Will you acknowledge what the Judge wrote in this opinion?
> >Or will you DENT what it says and it's meaning?
>
> The judge did write it.
> Why are you OBSESSED with Ken Smith? You've never had any
> contact with the man, yet you are devoting so much of your time to
> him. Do you honestly think yours is the behavior of the mentally
> sound?
That's an awfully bold statement there, Wizzard of Odd. The same
argument could be made about you. After all, you don't know Ken Smith
either -- other than what you've read in the ngs -- and you certainly
don't know BL, as has been proven over and over again -- http://goo.gl/UASgF
and http://goo.gl/qwYbd -- yet you have devoted so much of your time
to him.
TWellingfan
There is nothing to show that I am a psychopath.
Anything you may regurgitate in your lies and distortions ironically
would also apply to you as well.
If I was indeed a psychopath, then maybe gaggie its not a good idea
for you to try to make me mad, hum?
Moe
TWellingfan
> On Jun 14, 6:13 am, TWellingfan <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > For someone who was supposedly "had something wrong " with him he sure
> > managed to collect various PROOF to reveal to the public what Larson
> > actually was ( and still is BTW).
>
> Truth be told,
Never from you.
> BL came out smelling like a rose.
Actually he didn't. You can claim otherwise but the FACTS are that
Larson LOST stations airing TB rapidly after Ken Smith AND OTHERS did
exposes on Bob Larson, that he is persona non grata in many Christian
churches in America, so much so that Larson had to make his own church
franchise to give him the appearance of legitimacy, like his mail
order ministerial degree, and that Larson had to liquidate BLM soon
after shutting off the mic. You also forgot to mention that his
various attempts to regain being on TV with his own shows have ended
in failures, including after the Crouches got tired of his crap on
their station and dumped him unceremoniously. You forgot his " Real
Exorcist" " reality" series in the UK was canceled due to viewers
complaints, and while four eps of that crappy series was aired on the
SyFy network, the facts about that are less than praiseworthy
concerning Larson. Larson suckered the producer of "Joan of Arcadia"
to make a "drama" series base don what he claims is his life as an
exorcist, yet the actual pilot (which never sold) ad so many changes
that it did not resemble Larson at all. As for his so-called "new"
"reality series" " Possessed", I should mention that it is not being
aired anywhere on satellite or cable but only on Larson's self
publicity video web accounts.
And as much as he tries to claim otherwise, his " foremost authority"
claims about himself have no basis in reality and in fact he hasn't
been cited as a credible reference on other religions, cults and the
occult in the last 15 years!
I have seen various web sites related to Christians telling people
Larson is an apostate and is not recommended to be allowed in their
churches. I have accounts from various people who have told details of
their experiences concerning Bob Larson and the aftermaths of what
happened, none of which are of credit to Larson or his DWJD team
people.
Larson's favorite slogan is " doing what Jesus did" which ironically
and sadly he does not do. Whatever actual generosity or benevolence
that does happen at his ironically named " Spiritual Freedom Church"
goes on IN SPITE Of Larson not BECAUSE OF Larson. Assuming OC any
actually does happen at his Scottsdale church.
To go back to your claim, no matter how much Larson tries to use
heavy doses of rose scented air freshener, he can't cover up the
stench of his factual past.
>That particular
> witch-hunt against BL
(( raises eyebrow)) " witch-hunt against BL" huh? Really?
(( derisive snort)) KSIC, that coming from you is amusing. Not to
mention a poor choice of words.
So its all right for Larson to DO it to others ( Bill Clinton, gays,
Native Americans, etc) but all of a sudden its a "witch-hunt" when the
REAL Bob Larson is exposed.
((shakes head)) So Charles Manson as innocent. huh?
>is just one glaring example of the enemy's
> agenda against the mission of the Ministry. Take a look around.
> Have you visited the SFC? It really is breathtaking.
Ah yes the pride in the property, in the ego and vanity of Bob
Larson, in the riches and gold. An monument to Bob Larson.
Not one word about actually serving Jesus Christ, I've noticed. But
then Scottsdale isn't exactly a place where what Jesus taught His
followers to do concerning the less fortunate can be to actually
practice what Jesus taught. IOW not ACTUALLY " doing hat Jesus did".
I've noticed that after the devastating tornado in Joplin, a number
of churches organized relief efforts and came to help with the clean
ups and other aid for those people. In none of the stories about that
aspect of the subject that I have read has " Spiritual Freedom Church"
of Scottsdale Arizona been mentioned as part of the volunteer groups.
You are free, OC to prove me wrong.
>
> As the BLFCult learned to its chagrin, when one door closes for BL, 5
> more open. Now, care to explain why KS isn't a member of the Colorado
> Bar Association? You have the floor. . .
Long story, but in essence the Colorado Bar wimped out under pressure
form Larson and his lawyers to stack the deck against Smith. Larson's
personal grudge and your obvious pleasure about it shows more of how
UNCHRISTIAN you are, Bob.
>
> > KSIC forgot
> > to mention that Larson sued Smith but lost his lawsuit in a court of
> > law.
>
> It really isn't worth mentioning, since the Court of Appeals decision
> didn't harm BL one scintilla :)
It IS worth mentioning because Larson LOST that case. Afraid of the
whole TRUTH KSIC?
>
> > One of the factors that keeps Larson in the fringes of whacko
> > Christianity where anything he tries to get the vanity attention from
> > the mainstream he desperately needs always falls flat is that Larson's
> > reputation among his own Christian bretherin is lo indeed, so lo he
> > holds his " conferences" in hotel meeting rooms instead of churches.
>
> As does Pastor Rod Parsley and many, many others. Those who are in
> serious need of deliverance more than likely won't step foot inside a
> church.
Avoidance of the fact that Larson is persona non grata in most
American churches due to his adultery,his fornications, his lies,
greed, etc, noted.
Funny that some Pentecostal churches allow traveling " exorcists" but
not Larson......
> They just won't do it! They're more comfortable in an
> environment like an average conference room without the plush pews and
> the pioused preacher handing out platitudes.
Avoidance of the various REAL reasons why Larson does that noted.
Avoidance of what he actually does before his " exorcisms" noted.
Avoidance of mentioning the required admittance FEE noted.
And, may I add, avoidance of why he resorted to hotel conference
rooms AFTER the various "free admission" venues where certain various
events happened where the crowd turned AGAINST Larson noted. One
incident, the one about the crying rape victim, showed Larson's cold
callousness.
Spin it all you want, Rumplestilskin wannabe, you still can't
transform his disease into healthy tissue. Gilding a turd is still
gilding a turd.
>
> Oh yes, for those of you in the Sunshine State, in the Lakeland area,
> that's Lakeland, Florida. . . BL will be at Ignited Church on November
> 17th. Mark your calendars for an exciting night!
More SELF promotion....
>
> > The truth about Ken Smith vs. Bob Larson is not something KSIC wants
> > to be shown, so he's doing a little credibility bashing just in case
> > those media outlets he's bragging that are paying attention to Larson
> > don't do some digging and find out they've been lied to by Larson and
> > his cult followers.
>
> Hey! The future is looking bright -- gotta wear shades :) Where are
> your shades Maureen?
Come show your face and see, coward.
Moe
TWellingfan
> to him.
Actually that is distortion of the facts and you know it KSIC. Kent
challenged Ken to prove his claims and Kent did contribute money to
BLM and when Smith shod him some documents and Kent checked them out
as factual, Kent dropped his financial support of Larson and hi sham "
ministry". You also are lying when you are claiming he has "devoted so
much time to him" ( Bob Larson) when in FACT Kent has " devoted" far
more time concerning Hanson than about Larson. Certainly less than I
have.
But the rub for YOU is that Kent was a financial supporter, that he
did fall for your lies, and when his eyes were opened up with the
FACTS he did the honorable thing and stopped giving you money. If that
could happen to a sincere Christian who was a BLM supporter, then it
could happen to any of your suckers. And your greed and vanity needs
the people to believe your lies too much to allow the truth about you
to come out.
Moe
larsonomicon
> As the BLFCult learned to its chagrin, when one door closes for BL, 5
> more open.
This is accurate.
> Now, care to explain why KS isn't a member of the Colorado
> Bar Association? You have the floor. . .
Abusing the system.
larsonomicon
Deny, avoid, or refuse to comment I guess.
larsonomicon
>>Kent denied Ken Smith's bizarre legal actions and troubles.
>>
>
> I did no such thing.
Oh come on Kent, stop it.
larsonomicon
> The judge did write it.
> Why are you OBSESSED with Ken Smith?
But he isn't. I was the one who brought him up, Kent. As I did Ted
Kaldis.
larsonomicon
Luck with that.
larsonomicon
> If I was indeed a psychopath, then maybe gaggie its not a good idea
> for you to try to make me mad, hum?
>
> Moe
>
A threat?
larsonomicon
> Long story, but in essence the Colorado Bar wimped out under pressure
> form Larson and his lawyers to stack the deck against Smith.
That is completely in contradiction to the 2010 ruling in which the Court
says he is abusing the system.
Greegor
Moe > Bar wimped out under pressure [from]
Moe > Larson and his lawyers to stack the deck against Smith.
larsonomicon > That is completely in contradiction to
larsonomicon > the 2010 ruling in which the Court
larsonomicon > says he is abusing the system.
You've had the link to the US Supreme Court ruling from
the year 2010 shoved in your face and you're still
being an imbecile, posting in DENIAL of what it says, Moe!
http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2010/07/09-1503.pdf
[ could use some reformatting, raw cut and paste]
FILED
United States Court of Appeals
Tenth Circuit
July 27, 2010
Elisabeth A. Shumaker
Clerk of Court
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT
KENNETH L. SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
HON. MARCIA S. KRIEGER, in her
official capacity as Judge of the
United States District Court for the
District of Colorado; THE UNITED
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO;
THE TENTH CIRCUIT COURT OF
APPEALS; THE COLORADO
COURT OF APPEALS; THE
SUPREME COURT OF COLORADO;
JOHN DOES 1-99,
Defendants-Appellees.
KENNETH L. SMITH,
Plaintiff-Appellant,
v.
STEPHEN H. ANDERSON; ROBERT
R. BALDOCK; ROBERT E.
BLACKBURN; MARY BECK
BRISCOE; ROBERT H. HENRY;
PAUL J. KELLY, JR.; MARCIA S.
KRIEGER; MICHAEL W.
MCCONNELL; STEPHANIE K.
SEYMOUR; DEANELL REECE
TACHA; JOHN DOES 1-20; WILEY
Y. DANIEL; JUDGE DOE 21, in their
representative capacities;
UNITED
No. 09-1503
(D.C. No. 1:08-CV-00251-CMA-KMT)
(D. Colo.)
No. 10-1012
(D.C. No. 1:09-CV-01018-PAB)
(D. Colo.)
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has
determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The
case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and
judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive
value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
-2-
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO,
Defendants-Appellees.
ORDER AND JUDGMENT*
Before HOLMES and PORFILIO, Circuit Judges, and BRORBY, Senior Circuit
Judge.
These appeals are the latest in a series of cases and appeals filed
pro se by
Kenneth L. Smith, all of which can be traced to the Colorado Supreme
Court’s
denial of his application for admission to the Colorado bar after he
refused to
submit to a mental status examination. See Smith v. Mullarkey, 67 F.
App’x 535,
536 (10th Cir. 2003) (Mullarkey I) (explaining denial of Mr. Smith’s
application);
Smith v. Mullarkey, 121 P.3d 890, 891 (Colo. 2005) (Mullarkey II)
(same). In
No. 09-1503, Smith v. Krieger, the district court granted the
defendants’ motions
to dismiss and denied Mr. Smith’s post-judgment motion to alter or
amend the
judgment. In No. 10-1012, Smith v. Anderson, the district court
granted the
-3-
defendants’ motions to dismiss, denied Mr. Smith’s post-judgment
motion, and
imposed filing restrictions.
This court, on its own motion, has consolidated these appeals for
submission and disposition. Because Mr. Smith proceeded pro se in the
district
court and on appeal, we give his filings a liberal construction, but
we do not act
as his advocate, and his pro se status does not relieve him of
complying with
procedural rules applicable to all litigants. See Garrett v. Selby
Connor Maddux
& Janer, 425 F.3d 836, 840 (10th Cir. 2005). In Krieger, we conclude
that we
have jurisdiction over only the denial of his post-judgment motion,
which we
affirm, deeming that appeal frivolous. In Anderson, we conclude that
we have
jurisdiction over the district court’s dismissal of his action and its
order imposing
filing restrictions, both of which we affirm. Further, based on Mr.
Smith’s
abusive pattern of litigation, we impose a monetary sanction of $3,000
and
appellate filing restrictions.
I. 09-1503, Smith v. Krieger
A. Background
In Smith v. Krieger, Mr. Smith filed a complaint in the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado. He initially named the
Honorable
David M. Ebel as a defendant in his official capacity, apparently with
an eye to
policing Judge Ebel’s handling of another case Mr. Smith had filed in
that
district, Smith v. Bender, No. 1:07-cv-01924-MSK-KMT (filed Sept. 12,
2007).
-4-
See Aplt. Opening Br. at 17 (“this lawsuit was filed with the purpose
of
attempting to prevent what happened in [Bender]”). Mr. Smith also
named the
district court and this court (the Federal Defendants), the Colorado
Court of
Appeals and the Colorado Supreme Court (the State Defendants), and 99
John
Does as defendants. The case was drawn to Judge Ebel, who recused
himself, and
reassigned to the Honorable Marcia S. Krieger. After Judge Ebel
recused himself
in Bender, that case was assigned to Judge Krieger. Mr. Smith then
filed an
amended complaint in this case, substituting Judge Krieger in her
official capacity
for Judge Ebel.
Mr. Smith’s amended complaint was based on allegations that
“[d]efendants’ practices of issuing ‘designer law’ (opinions
applicable to one and
only one set of defendants), issuing so-called ‘unpublished’ opinions
(opinions
declared to be devoid of precedential effect), and issuing opinions
that fabricate
and/or elide key facts” exceeded judicial power as defined in Article
III of the
Constitution and deprived him and similarly situated citizens of their
right of
access to the courts and to due process under the First, Fifth, and
Fourteenth
Amendments. R., Vol. 1 at 488-89, ¶¶ 104, 108. He also alleged that
defendants
violated his right to equal protection by treating “all pro se
cases . . . shabbily and
superficially.” Id. at 488, ¶ 106 (internal quotation marks omitted).
He requested
a declaration that defendants violated these rights as alleged, and
preliminary and
permanent injunctions prohibiting them from issuing orders or
decisions
-5-
(1) without addressing all legal arguments or factual contentions in a
manner
sufficient to facilitate adequate appellate (and, in this court, en
banc) review;
(2) without providing a rationale for any deviation from controlling
precedent
“sufficient to ensure that an appellate court and the general public
will be aware
of the variance”; and (3) “designated as being without precedential
effect.” Id.
at 490-91.
After being named as a defendant in this case, Judge Krieger recused
herself and filed a motion to dismiss. The Federal Defendants and the
State
Defendants also filed motions to dismiss. A magistrate judge issued a
recommendation that defendants’ motions be granted for a variety of
reasons and
that Mr. Smith’s motion for injunctive and declaratory relief be
denied.
Mr. Smith filed objections. The district court modified the
recommendation and
adopted it, granting defendants’ motions, denying Mr. Smith’s motion,
and
dismissing the case in its entirety. With respect to Judge Krieger and
the Federal
Defendants, the district court determined that they were protected by
sovereign
immunity, a “concept [that] has long been firmly established by the
Supreme
Court, see, e.g., Cohens v. Virginia, 19 U.S. (6 Wheat.) 264, 411-12
(1821),”
Smith v. Krieger, 643 F. Supp. 2d 1274, 1280 (D. Colo. 2009). The
court also
concluded Mr. Smith had failed to show a waiver of the Federal
Defendants’ or
Judge Krieger’s sovereign immunity. The court further explained that
to the
extent Mr. Smith’s complaint could be read as requesting relief
against those
1 “The Rooker-Feldman doctrine prevents the lower federal courts from
exercising jurisdiction over cases brought by state-court losers
challenging
state-court judgments rendered before the district court proceedings
commenced.”
Lance v. Dennis, 546 U.S. 459, 460 (2006) (quotation omitted). This
court
previously relied on the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in rejecting Mr.
Smith’s
challenge to the Colorado Supreme Court’s denial of his bar
application. See
Mullarkey I, 67 F. App’x at 538.
-6-
defendants under the mandamus provision of 28 U.S.C. § 1361, this
court had
determined in Trackwell v. United States Government, 472 F.3d 1242,
1245-46
(10th Cir. 2007), that § 1361 does not confer district-court
jurisdiction over the
federal courts or their judicial officers.
As to the State Defendants, the court concluded it lacked power to
direct
them in the performance of their judicial duties, see Van Sickle v.
Holloway,
791 F.2d 1431, 1436 n.5 (10th Cir. 1986), and that Mr. Smith’s
allegation that the
Colorado Supreme Court’s adverse decision in Mullarkey II was rendered
without
jurisdiction was no bar to the application of the Rooker-Feldman
doctrine1 to his
present claims because “‘there is no procedural due process exception
to the
Rooker-Feldman rule.’” Krieger, 643 F. Supp. 2d at 1283 (quoting
Snider v. City
of Excelsior Springs, Mo., 154 F.3d 809, 812 (8th Cir. 1998)).
The district court’s order was filed on August 3, 2009, and its
separate
judgment on August 4, 2009. On August 21, 2009, Mr. Smith filed a
motion
titled “Rule 59(e) Motion to Alter or Amend Judgment” (the Post-
Judgment
Motion), and he later moved for a hearing on the motion. The district
court
denied both motions on September 9, 2009, concluding that in his Post-
Judgment
-7-
Motion, Mr. Smith had simply reargued his case, which was not an
appropriate
basis for relief under Rule 59(e), and that a hearing was unnecessary.
Mr. Smith filed his notice of appeal (NOA) on November 6, 2009. In its
substantive entirety, the NOA read:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that Kenneth L. Smith, Plaintiff
in the above-captioned case, hereby appeals to the United States
Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit from the Final Judgment
entered herein on August 4, 2009 (post-judgment motions disposed
of on September 9, 2009).
R., Vol. 2 at 451.
B. Discussion
1. Appellate Jurisdiction
Although none of the appellees have expressed concern about the effect
that the timing of Mr. Smith’s Post-Judgment Motion or the substance
of his NOA
has on our jurisdiction over this appeal, we have an obligation to
analyze our
jurisdiction sua sponte. See Amazon, Inc. v. Dirt Camp, Inc., 273 F.3d
1271,
1274 (10th Cir. 2001). Under Rule 4 of the Federal Rules of Appellate
Procedure,
“the timely filing of a notice of appeal in a civil case is a
jurisdictional
requirement.” Bowles v. Russell, 551 U.S. 205, 214 (2007). And under
Rule 3(c)(1) of those Rules, a “notice of appeal must . . . specify
the party
or parties taking the appeal,” “designate the judgment, order, or part
thereof
being appealed,” and “name the court to which the appeal is taken.”
Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1). “Rule 3’s dictates are jurisdictional in
nature, and their
2 Amendments to the Federal Rules of Civil and Appellate Procedure
took effect December 1, 2009, and provide longer time periods under
Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e) and Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(vi) that would
likely lead to the
conclusion that we have jurisdiction over Mr. Smith’s appeal from the
district
court’s underlying judgment. However, in this appeal, we apply the
version of
those rules in effect at the time Mr. Smith filed his Post-Judgment
Motion and his
NOA because the filing deadlines those rules contain expired prior to
the
effective date of the revisions. See Ysais v. Richardson, 603 F.3d
1175, 1178 n.3
(10th Cir. 2010) (applying prior version of Rule 59 because ten-day
period for
filing Rule 59 motion had expired prior to effective date of the 2009
amendments), petition for cert. filed (U.S. June 10, 2010) (No.
09-11225).
-8-
satisfaction is a prerequisite to appellate review. Although courts
should construe
Rule 3 liberally when determining whether it has been complied with,
noncompliance is fatal to an appeal.” Smith v. Barry, 502 U.S. 244,
248 (1992).
Thus, to confer jurisdiction on this court, a document must be filed
within the
time specified by Rule 4 and provide the notice required by Rule 3.
Although it is clear from his NOA that Mr. Smith intended to appeal to
this
court, the NOA is not timely with respect to the district court’s
underlying
judgment, and it is debatable whether he adequately designated the
order denying
his Post-Judgment Motion as an object of his appeal. We first address
timeliness.
Because Mr. Smith did not file his Post-Judgment Motion within ten
days
of the district court’s judgment, excluding intervening weekend days
and
holidays, see Fed. R. Civ. P. 6(a)(2) (2009),2 we treat it as a motion
brought under
Rule 60(b) rather than one brought under Rule 59(e). See Price v.
Philpot,
420 F.3d 1158, 1167 n.9 (10th Cir. 2005). Thus construed, the motion
did not toll
the time for filing a notice of appeal because it was not filed within
ten days of
-9-
the district court’s judgment. See Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(4)(A). In
order to
timely appeal the underlying judgment, therefore, Mr. Smith had to
file his
NOA “within 60 days after the judgment or order appealed from is
entered,”
Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B), the time limit applicable when the United
States, its
officers, or one of its agencies is a party. The district court’s
judgment was filed
August 4, 2009, so Mr. Smith’s NOA was due by October 3, 2009, but he
did not
file it until November 6, 2009. As such, the NOA was clearly untimely
as to the
district court’s underlying judgment, and we lack jurisdiction to
review that
judgment. See Bowles, 551 U.S. at 214.
With respect to the district court’s September 9 order denying the
Post-Judgment Motion, Mr. Smith’s NOA is timely but arguably
noncompliant
with the requirement that it “designate the judgment, order, or part
thereof being
appealed.” Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)(B). The NOA clearly designates the
underlying judgment as an object of the appeal, but makes only
parenthetical
reference to the date on which the district court denied the Post-
Judgment Motion.
Furthermore, in his opening appellate brief, Mr. Smith has not
specifically
addressed the district court’s denial of his Post-Judgment Motion,
suggesting that
he did not intend to appeal it. Given Mr. Smith’s pro se status,
however, and the
liberal construction we are to give Rule 3, Smith, 502 U.S. at 248, we
will
construe the NOA as sufficiently designating the order denying his
Post-Judgment
Motion for purposes of Rule 3(c)(1)(B) because it refers to the fact
that the order
-10-
was issued, and we will construe the arguments in his appellate brief
as arguments
that the district court should have granted post-judgment relief
because it
committed clear error in issuing its order of dismissal, which is a
valid basis for
such relief, see Servants of Paraclete v. Does, 204 F.3d 1005, 1012
(10th Cir.
2000).
2. Merits
We review the district court’s denial of Mr. Smith’s Post-Judgment
Motion
for an abuse of discretion. See Jennings v. Rivers, 394 F.3d 850, 854
(10th Cir.
2005). Mr. Smith has advanced three main disagreements with the
district court’s
underlying dismissal order: (1) that sovereign immunity lacks
constitutional
grounding; (2) that judicial immunity is no bar to relief in the
nature of
mandamus under 28 U.S.C. § 1361 against judges and courts; and (3)
that the
Colorado Supreme Court acted without jurisdiction in Mullarkey II, so
its
judgment is void, the Rooker-Feldman doctrine is inapplicable, and,
apparently,
the district court should have issued a declaration to that effect.
First, as the district court observed, the jurisdictional implications
of the
United States’ sovereign immunity are firmly entrenched in Supreme
Court
jurisprudence. See, e.g., United States v. Mitchell, 463 U.S. 206, 212
(1983)
(“It is axiomatic that the United States may not be sued without its
consent and
that the existence of consent is a prerequisite for jurisdiction.”);
Cohens, 19 U.S.
at 411-12 (“The universally received opinion is, that no suit can be
commenced or
-11-
prosecuted against the United States[.]”). And we are not at liberty
to cast aside
applicable Supreme Court precedent. United States v. Harris, 447 F.3d
1300,
1303 n.1 (10th Cir. 2006). The judiciary, which necessarily includes
the Federal
Defendants and Judge Krieger in her official capacity, forms one
branch of the
United States government, see generally U.S. Const. art. III, and
therefore is
protected by the sovereign immunity accorded the United States.
Congress may
waive the United States’ sovereign immunity, but waiver must be
express, United
States v. Mitchell, 445 U.S. 535, 538 (1980), and the burden is on Mr.
Smith to
identify a specific waiver of sovereign immunity as it applies to his
claims against
the Federal Defendants or Judge Krieger, see Normandy Apartments, Ltd.
v. U.S.
Dep’t of Housing and Urban Dev., 554 F.3d 1290, 1295 (10th Cir. 2009).
He has
failed to do so, arguing instead that sovereign immunity itself lacks
a
constitutional basis, a notion wholly incompatible with the long-
standing Supreme
Court precedent noted above.
Regarding the district court’s denial of relief in the nature of
mandamus, a
panel of this court has held that such relief does not lie against the
federal courts
under 28 U.S.C. § 1361, Trackwell, 492 F.3d at 1246, and another panel
has held
that federal courts lack mandamus power to order state courts or their
judicial
officers to perform their judicial duties, Van Sickle, 791 F.2d at
1436. There was
no error in the district court’s application of these holdings. Mr.
Smith’s
argument that judicial immunity is no bar to relief under § 1361 is
irrelevant, as
-12-
the district court specifically did not base its dismissal in any
respect on judicial
immunity.
Finally, Mr. Smith’s argument that Mullarkey II was rendered in the
absence of jurisdiction and is therefore void, nullifying the
application of
Rooker-Feldman doctrine, lacks an arguable basis. We have already
informed
Mr. Smith once that “the Rooker-Feldman doctrine bars [him] from
relitigating
the refusal of the Justices of the Colorado Supreme Court to recuse
from his
appeal in . . . Mullarkey [II].” Smith v. Bender, 350 F. App’x 190,
193 (10th Cir.
2009), cert. denied, 130 S. Ct. 2097 (2010). His recourse was to seek
review in
the United States Supreme Court, which he did, albeit without success.
See Smith
v. Mullarkey, 547 U.S. 1071 (2006) (order denying certiorari). And his
due
process challenge to the Colorado Supreme Court’s exercise of
jurisdiction, on
the ground that it ran afoul of Colorado’s statutory scheme for
appeals, falls
squarely within the Rooker-Feldman doctrine. See Doe v. Mann, 415 F.3d
1038,
1042 n.6 (9th Cir. 2005) (“Rooker-Feldman applies where the plaintiff
in federal
court claims that the state court did not have jurisdiction to render
a judgment.”).
In sum, we conclude that this appeal is legally frivolous because “it
lacks
an arguable basis in either fact or law,” Thompson v. Gibson, 289 F.3d
1218, 1222
(10th Cir. 2002). The district court properly followed controlling
precedent.
3 Scire facias, meaning “‘you are to make known, show cause,’” was
“[a]
writ requiring the person against whom it issued to appear and show
cause why
some matter of record should not be annulled or vacated, or why a
dormant
judgment against that person should not be revived.” Black’s Law
Dictionary
1464 (9th ed. 2009). Although the writ is now abolished, “[r]elief
previously
available through [it] may be obtained by appropriate action or motion
under
these rules.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 81(b).
-13-
II. 10-1012, Smith v. Anderson
A. Background
In Smith v. Anderson, Mr. Smith named as defendants the United States
District Court for the District of Colorado, three of that court’s
judges plus one
“Judge Doe,” and eight judges of this court plus twenty “Judge Does.”
He raised
two claims. The first was “in the nature of a writ of scire facias,”3
R., Vol. 1 at 5,
¶ 6, seeking to remove the defendant judges from their seats due to
their alleged
failure to maintain the “good Behaviour” required for continued tenure
under
Article III, section 1, clause 2 of the United States Constitution. In
his second
claim, he sought to prosecute crimes allegedly committed by the
defendant judges
against the United States. Mr. Smith claimed he had “inherent
authority” to raise
his first claim under “the Ninth and Tenth Amendments of the United
States
Constitution.” Id. at 51, ¶ 255. With respect to his second claim, he
contended
he was “authorized to prosecute crimes committed against the United
States by
virtue of his inherent authority as co-sovereign, pursuant to powers
reserved
4 The Ninth Amendment provides: “The enumeration in the Constitution,
of
certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others
retained by the
people.” The Tenth Amendment provides: “The powers not delegated to
the
United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States,
are reserved
to the States respectively, or to the people.”
-14-
under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, and crimes committed against his
person
and/or property in particular.” Id. at 51-52, ¶ 259.4
As the factual basis for his claims, Mr. Smith alleged that defendants
Anderson, Briscoe, Blackburn, Baldock, McConnell, Seymour, Tacha,
Henry, and
Kelly had either (1) intentionally and criminally disregarded binding
Supreme
Court and Tenth Circuit precedent; (2) delayed issuing a decision in
one of his
earlier appeals for 26 months; (3) failed to exercise de novo review
of magistrate
judge recommendations and district court judgments; or, (4) motivated
by “undue
guild favoritism,” R., Vol. 1 at 50, ¶ 245 (quotation marks omitted),
summarily
dismissed three complaints of judicial misconduct he had filed in the
Tenth
Circuit and one complaint filed by the plaintiff in a case in which
Mr. Smith tried
to file an amicus brief.
With regard to defendant Krieger, Mr. Smith alleged that prior to her
recusal in Krieger, she violated his due process rights by not
permitting him to
file an amended complaint as of right and by not enforcing a deadline
against his
opponents. He also alleged that in Bender, Judge Krieger’s failure to
recuse
herself because of her alleged personal friendship and professional
collaboration
5 Although Mr. Smith named the Honorable Wiley Y. Daniel as a
defendant,
he made no allegations regarding Judge Daniel other than to note that
defendant
“Judge Doe” would likely succeed Judge Daniel upon the latter’s
recusal from
another case Mr. Smith had filed.
-15-
with one of the defendants was felonious, and that she had fabricated
or elided
facts in order to exercise jurisdiction.5
For substantive relief, Mr. Smith sought an order (1) removing the
defendant judges from their offices; (2) convening a grand jury to
hear evidence
of federal crimes those judges and others allegedly committed; (3)
compelling the
Attorney General to provide supervisory counsel under 28 U.S.C. § 519;
and
(4) granting him leave to prosecute any indictments returned by the
grand jury in
the event the local United States Attorney refused to prosecute. He
also asked for
reasonable fees, expenses, and costs, including attorney fees.
The defendants filed two motions to dismiss, which the district court
granted under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) for lack of jurisdiction,
concluding that
“[r]emoving judges from office . . . is the sole province of Congress.
U.S. Const.,
art. I, § 2,3.” R., Vol. 4 at 60. Regarding Mr. Smith’s second claim,
the district
court determined that he lacked authority to proceed as a private
attorney general
on behalf of the United States because 28 U.S.C. § 519 vests that
authority solely
in the Attorney General and his delegates.
The district court next proposed filing restrictions based in part on
Mr. Smith’s series of pro se lawsuits against the judges who had
adversely
6 Mr. Smith has not taken issue with the denial of his Rule 60(b)
motion, so
we do not consider it any further.
-16-
decided cases against him, all stemming from the Colorado Supreme
Court’s
order denying his application for admission to the Colorado bar. The
court also
noted Mr. Smith’s penchant for making duplicative arguments in the
same case,
such as an emergency motion for relief in the nature of mandamus and
two
emergency motions for declaratory relief, all of which raised the same
arguments
found in his complaint and his responses to defendants’ motions to
dismiss. The
court further observed that his filings had “become increasingly
abusive. In at
least one prior case in this Court, as well as in the two cases still
pending before
[the district court], Mr. Smith suggests that violence against federal
judges may
be justified if a litigant, such as himself, does not get the relief
he requests.” Id.
at 65. Based on this history, and over Mr. Smith’s objections, the
district court
prohibited him from filing any new actions pro se in the United States
District
Court for the District of Colorado unless he first receives permission
from that
court to do so. The court also treated a post-judgment motion Mr.
Smith had filed
under Rule 59(e) as a Rule 60(b) motion and denied it.6
B. Discussion
1. Appellate Jurisdiction
The district court issued its dismissal order in this case on November
19,
2009, and its separate judgment on November 23, 2009. On January 5,
2010,
-17-
Mr. Smith filed a post-judgment motion, which contained his objections
to the
court’s proposed filing restrictions. On January 13, 2010, the court
overruled his
objections to the filing restrictions and imposed them. The next day,
January 14,
2010, Mr. Smith filed his notice of appeal, which read, in its
substantive entirety:
NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN that the United States of
America, as represented by Kenneth L. Smith in propria persona in a
relational capacity in the above-named cases, hereby appeals to the
United States Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit from the Final
Judgment entered herein on November 23, 2009 (motions for
post-judgment relief are still pending).
Id. at 172. The NOA was timely with regard to the underlying judgment
and the
order imposing the filing restrictions. However, it does not designate
that order
as an object of this appeal, as required by Fed. R. App. P. 3(c)(1)
(B), and
Mr. Smith did not file another NOA or an amended NOA designating that
order
for appeal. But regardless of whether the NOA was compliant with Rule
3 as to
the order imposing filing restrictions, Mr. Smith challenged the
filing restrictions
in his opening brief. See Aplt. Opening Br. at 60-67. That brief was
filed on
February 26, 2010, within sixty days of the order imposing the filing
restrictions
and therefore timely under Fed. R. App. P. 4(a)(1)(B). Further, it
complied with
all three requirements of Rule 3(c)(1). Therefore, we may treat it as
the
functional equivalent of an NOA from the order imposing filing
restrictions,
conferring jurisdiction on this court over that order. See Smith, 502
U.S.
at 244-48.
-18-
2. Merits
Having established that we have jurisdiction to review the district
court’s
underlying judgment and its order imposing filing restrictions, we now
turn to
Mr. Smith’s appellate arguments. Our review of a district court’s
order
dismissing an action under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(1) is de novo, Colo.
Envtl. Coal.
v. Wenker, 353 F.3d 1221, 1227 (10th Cir. 2004), and our review of the
imposition of filing restrictions is for an abuse of discretion,
Tripati v. Beaman,
878 F.2d 351, 354 (10th Cir. 1989).
Regarding his first claim, Mr. Smith argues that impeachment is not
the
sole means of removing Article III judges who no longer exhibit the
“good
Behaviour” required for continued tenure under Article III of the
Constitution.
Instead, he argues, the Ninth and Tenth Amendments work to reserve to
the
people the right to remove such Article III judges. We disagree.
Although the
Constitution itself does not expressly limit removal of Article III
judges to
Congressional impeachment, the Supreme Court has taken that view. See
N. Pipeline Constr. Co. v. Marathon Pipe Line Co., 458 U.S. 50, 59
(1982)
(explaining that “[t]he ‘good Behaviour’ Clause guarantees that Art.
III judges
shall enjoy life tenure, subject only to removal by impeachment”)
(plurality
opinion); United States ex rel. Toth v. Quarles, 350 U.S. 11, 16
(1955) (stating
that “[Article III] courts are presided over by judges appointed for
life, subject
only to removal by impeachment”). For those “alleging that a judge has
engaged
-19-
in conduct prejudicial to the effective and expeditious administration
of the
business of the courts, or alleging that such judge is unable to
discharge all the
duties of office by reason of mental or physical disability,” 28
U.S.C. § 351(a),
Congress has established a statutory mechanism for complaints of
judicial
misconduct that can culminate in Congressional impeachment
proceedings.
See 28 U.S.C. §§ 351-364.
Mr. Smith’s second claim fares no better than his first. Congress has
by
statute conferred the power to prosecute crimes in the name of the
United States
on the United States Attorney General and his delegates. See 28 U.S.C.
§§ 516,
519. The long-standing view of the Supreme Court is that such power is
exclusive. See, e.g., United States v. Nixon, 418 U.S. 683, 693 (1974)
(“the
Executive Branch has exclusive authority and absolute discretion to
decide
whether to prosecute a case”) (emphasis added); id. at 694 (“Under the
authority
of Art. II, [§] 2, Congress has vested in the Attorney General the
power to
conduct the criminal litigation of the United States Government. 28
U.S.C.
[§] 516.”); The Confiscation Cases, 74 U.S. 454, 457 (1868) (“Public
prosecutions, until they come before the court to which they are
returnable, are
within the exclusive direction of the district attorney . . . .”)
(emphasis added).
Therefore, as the district court concluded, Mr. Smith has no right to
initiate a
criminal prosecution in the name of the United States under the Ninth
or Tenth
Amendments, or otherwise.
-20-
Finally, Mr. Smith contends that the district court’s filing
restrictions
violate his First Amendment right of access to the courts and his due
process
rights, and he suggests that a finding of frivolousness is essential
to the
imposition of filing restrictions. We have rejected these arguments.
“[T]he right
of access to the courts is neither absolute nor unconditional, and
there is no
constitutional right of access to the courts to prosecute an action
that is frivolous
or malicious.” Tripati, 878 F.2d at 353 (citation omitted) (emphasis
added).
Federal courts have “power under 28 U.S.C. § 1651(a) to enjoin
litigants who
abuse the court system by harassing their opponents.” Id. at 352.
Thus, federal
courts may “regulate the activities of abusive litigants by imposing
carefully
tailored restrictions under the appropriate circumstances.” Id.
(quotation
omitted). Although “[l]itigiousness alone will not support an
injunction
restricting filing activities,” filing restrictions “are proper where
a litigant’s
abusive and lengthy history is properly set forth,” id. at 353, the
court provides
guidelines as to what the litigant “must do to obtain the court’s
permission to file
an action,” and the litigant receives “notice and an opportunity to
oppose the
court’s order before it is instituted,” id. at 354.
Here, the district court complied with all requirements for imposing
filing
restrictions. It recounted Mr. Smith’s lengthy, abusive filing
history, which we
have alluded to throughout this decision and discuss below in greater
detail. The
court also provided Mr. Smith with pertinent guidelines for obtaining
the court’s
-21-
permission to file an action and with an opportunity to oppose the
restrictions.
Although the district court did not consider the case before it to be
frivolous, it
did not need to; abuse of the judicial process suffices. Indeed,
having reviewed
Mr. Smith’s litigation history, we conclude that not only should the
district
court’s filing restrictions be affirmed, but that a monetary sanction
and filing
restrictions in this court are warranted, and we now turn to those.
III. Monetary Sanctions and Filing Restrictions
Mr. Smith has had nine pro se cases decided adversely in courts of
this
circuit and the state of Colorado, each of which stemmed directly or
indirectly
from the denial of his bar application. In Mullarkey I and II, he sued
the
Colorado Supreme Court justices over that court’s denial of his bar
application.
Unsuccessful, he then turned his sights on the constitutionality of
unpublished
judicial decisions issued by the Colorado Supreme Court and this
court,
specifically including our decision in Mullarkey I. See Smith v. U.S.
Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit, 484 F.3d 1281, 1284 (10th Cir. 2007)
(consolidated
disposition of appeals in two cases). Again unsuccessful, he filed
Bender, suing
the Justices of the Colorado Supreme Court along with the attorney
general and
an assistant attorney general of the State of Colorado. The dismissal
of that case
was affirmed on the basis of sovereign and qualified immunity, the
Rooker-Feldman doctrine, and preclusion doctrine. See Bender, 350 F.
App’x
7 According to the district court’s decision in Arguello, Mr. Smith
also
claimed that opposing counsel in prior suits violated his
constitutional rights by
seeking sanctions against him, and he challenged “his inclusion on a
‘threat list’
which prevents him from entering courthouses without ‘harassment’ by
U.S.
Marshals.” Arguello, No. 09-cv-02589-PAB, 2010 WL 1781937, at *1.
-22-
at 192-94. As discussed above, Mr. Smith also filed Krieger and
Anderson,
largely targeting judges who had issued rulings adverse to him in the
prior cases.
The same district judge who presided over Anderson has also dismissed
two
other cases Mr. Smith filed, and he has appealed one of those. The
district
court’s decisions indicate Mr. Smith again challenged the process that
the
Colorado Supreme Court used in denying his admission to the Colorado
bar and
has continued his pattern of suing judges who have ruled against him.
See Smith
v. Arguello, No. 09-cv-02589-PAB, 2010 WL 1781937, at *1 (D. Colo. May
4,
2010), appeal docketed, No. 10-1280 (10th Cir. July 6, 2010); Smith v.
Eid,
No. 10-cv-00078-PAB, 2010 WL 1791549, at *1-*2 (D. Colo. May 4, 2010).
7
Not only has Mr. Smith persisted down a futile path, the tenor of his
court
filings has turned increasingly abusive. We made note of this in
Bender and
warned Mr. Smith of the consequences:
Mr. Smith’s opening and reply briefs are littered with frivolous and
irrelevant arguments and tirades. His briefs also contain scurrilous
allegations and personal attacks regarding alleged wrongdoing by the
named Justices of the Colorado Supreme Court and the district
judge. . . . We admonish and warn Mr. Smith that if he files future
appeals in this court containing similar unsupported claims,
allegations, or personal attacks, we will not hesitate to impose hefty
sanctions and filing restrictions in order to curb his abusive and
disrespectful litigation practices.
-23-
Bender, 350 F. App’x at 195. Mr. Smith did not heed our warning, and
we
conclude that it is time to impose those “hefty sanctions and filing
restrictions”
we warned him about in Bender.
“This court has the . . . inherent power to impose sanctions that are
necessary to regulate the docket, promote judicial efficiency,
and . . . to deter
frivolous filings.” Christensen v. Ward, 916 F.2d 1462, 1469 (10th
Cir. 1990).
Thus, we have ordered pro se appellants to make a monetary payment
directly to
this court “as a limited contribution to the United States for the
cost and expenses
of this action.” Id. (imposing $500 sanction); see also Van Sickle,
791 F.2d
at 1437 (imposing $1,500 sanction). Mr. Smith’s appeal in Krieger is
frivolous,
and his appeal in Anderson borders on the frivolous. In both cases,
and despite
our warning in Bender, he has persisted in making unsupported
allegations of
judicial corruption, baseless claims, and personal attacks on the
judges of the
district court, this court, and several Justices of the United States
Supreme Court
and the Colorado Supreme Court. His briefs contain vulgar language,
threats of
lethal violence against judges rendering decisions he considers
tyrannical, and
tirades on a number of irrelevant topics. Accordingly, we order Mr.
Smith to
show cause within ten days of the entry of this Order and Judgment why
he
should not be ordered to pay $3,000 to the Clerk of the United States
Court of
Appeals for the Tenth Circuit as a limited contribution to the United
States for the
costs and expenses of these appeals. See Sain v. Snyder, Nos. 09-2153,
09-2175,
-24-
2010 WL 1006589 (10th Cir. Mar. 19, 2010) (sanctioning pro se
appellant $3,000
under reasoning of Christensen and Van Sickle), petition for cert.
filed,
78 U.S.L.W. 3653 (U.S. Apr. 14, 2010) (No. 09-1332). The response
shall not
exceed five pages. If the response is not received by the Clerk within
the
specified ten days, the sanction will be imposed.
Finally, as noted above, federal courts have the inherent power to
impose
carefully tailored filing restrictions. Tripati, 878 F.2d at 352.
Based on
Mr. Smith’s “pattern of litigation activity[,] which is manifestly
abusive,”
Winslow v. Hunter (In Re Winslow), 17 F.3d 314, 315 (10th Cir. 1994),
we now
impose filing restrictions. Given the contemptuousness and utter lack
of
propriety evidenced in his appellate filings, we do not limit the
restrictions to any
specific subject matter. Thus, in order to proceed pro se in this
court in any
appeal or original proceeding, Mr. Smith must provide this court with:
1. A list of all appeals or original proceedings filed, whether
currently
pending or previously filed with this court, including the name,
number, and
citation, if applicable, of each case, and the current status or
disposition of each
appeal or original proceeding; and
2. A notarized affidavit, in proper legal form, that recites the
issues he
seeks to present, including a short discussion of the legal basis
asserted therefor,
and describing with particularity the order being challenged. The
affidavit must
also certify, to the best of Mr. Smith’s knowledge, that the legal
arguments being
-25-
raised are not frivolous or made in bad faith; that they are warranted
by existing
law or a good faith argument for the extension, modification, or
reversal of
existing law; that the appeal or original proceeding is not interposed
for any
improper purpose, such as delay or to needlessly increase the cost of
litigation;
and that he will comply with all appellate and local rules of this
court.
These filings shall be submitted to the Clerk of the court, who shall
forward
them for review to the Chief Judge or her designee, to determine
whether to
permit Mr. Smith to proceed with a pro se appeal or original
proceeding. Without
such authorization, the matter will be dismissed. If the Chief Judge
or her
designee authorizes a pro se appeal or original proceeding to proceed,
an order
shall be entered indicating that the matter shall proceed in
accordance with the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Tenth Circuit Rules.
In addition, Mr. Smith shall not submit any further pleadings or
motions in
this court not specifically authorized by the Federal Rules of
Appellate Procedure.
In the event that such a motion or pleading is submitted, the Clerk of
the court
may return it to Mr. Smith unfiled.
Mr. Smith shall have ten days from the date of this order and judgment
to
file written objections, limited to fifteen pages, to these proposed
filing
restrictions. If he does not file timely objections, the filing
restrictions will take
effect twenty days from the entry of this order and judgment. If he
does file
timely objections, these filing restrictions will not take effect
unless the court
-26-
overrules his objections, in which case these filing restrictions
shall apply to any
filing with this court after that ruling. Although Mr. Smith must
comply with the
Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Tenth Circuit Rules in
Smith v.
Arguello, No. 10-1280, the filing restrictions shall have no other
application to
that matter.
Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, we AFFIRM the district court’s denial of
Mr. Smith’s Post-Judgment Motion in No. 09-1503. In No. 10-1012, we
AFFIRM
the district court’s judgment and its order imposing filing
restrictions. Further,
we ORDER Mr. Smith to show cause why he should not be sanctioned and
why
filing restrictions should not be imposed, as set forth herein.
Entered for the Court
Jerome A. Holmes
Circuit Judge
Greegor
> Actually that is distortion of the facts and you know it KSIC. Kent
> challenged Ken to prove his claims and Kent did contribute money to
> as factual, Kent dropped his financial support of Larson and [ his ] sham "
> ministry".
Where and when did Kent post that Ken Smith
had proven to him that BL was a sham?
Post a LINK!
Wasn't it right before Kent got arrested for garage burglary?
It's an amazing coincidence how Kent posted
little or nothing to usenet for TEN MONTHS
starting just before the garage burglary?
> You also are lying when you are claiming he has "devoted so
> much time to him" ( Bob Larson) when in FACT Kent has " devoted" far
> more time concerning Hanson than about Larson. Certainly less than I
> have.
>
> But the rub for YOU is that Kent was a financial supporter,
I believe that Kent paid for membership as
a hater and with the intention of burrowing
inside and obtaining dirt to use for a big GOTCHA.
His cohorts have been known to do such
outrageous and obsessive things.
> that he
> did fall for your lies, and when his eyes were opened up with the
> FACTS he did the honorable thing and stopped giving you money. If that
> could happen to a sincere Christian
Sincere Christian, or a hater burrowing inside
to find dirt to use for a big GOTCHA game?
> who was a BLM supporter, then it
> could happen to any of your suckers. And your greed and vanity needs
> the people to believe your lies too much to allow the truth about you
> to come out.
You are a self styled pagan waging religious war on Bob Larson.
You can't even fairly acknowledge the meaning
of the 2010 ruling by the Federal court of Appeals
for Colorado.
It points out Smith's vulgar language and refusal to take a psych
eval.
Keep denying those two points, Moe, PLEASE! LOL
http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2010/07/09-1503.pdf
Frank McCoy
Um ... My Acrobat reader crashed trying to handle the link.
Still, from what was posted:
The US Supreme Court did NOT weigh in on this matter.
The Tenth Circuit Court of Appeals did.
Still, reading their ruling, I find it hard to believe that the SCOTUS
would even bother to examine this case; figuring the Court of Appeals
ruled quite correctly.
--
_____
/ ' / ™
,-/-, __ __. ____ /_
(_/ / (_(_/|_/ / <_/ <_
kensmithiscool
> > BL came out smelling like a rose.
>
> Actually he didn't. You can claim otherwise but the FACTS are that
> Larson LOST stations airing TB rapidly after Ken Smith AND OTHERS did
> exposes on Bob Larson, that he is persona non grata in many Christian
> churches in America,
Obviously you have your facts wrong. No surprise there. There are
those churches in N. America that quite frankly just don't get what BL
is all about. They don't get what the mission of the Ministry is
about. Quite frankly, they're too chicken. They want to be coddled.
They'll often say, "Oh we can't do that. We don't want to offend
anyone." And much like Maureen, they are clearly ignorant to basic
Bible doctrine. If there was ever a punchline to the joke "What does
a nutty Pagan and a group of spineless Christians have in common?"
that would be it!
>You also forgot to mention that his
> various attempts to regain being on TV with his own shows have ended
> in failures, including after the Crouches got tired of his crap on
> their station and dumped him unceremoniously.
You forgot to mention that BL left them. Too many internal problems
at that network, as well as Paul's personal demons made it easy for BL
to divest himself from that mess.
>You forgot his " Real
> Exorcist" " reality" series in the UK was canceled due to viewers
> complaints,
That's news to me. Where do you come up with this stuff? The UK has
always been good to BL. Did you happen to read the recent Fabulous
piece? You know, the UK's most read magazine. Over 4 million
readers!
> And as much as he tries to claim otherwise, his " foremost authority"
> claims about himself have no basis in reality and in fact he hasn't
> been cited as a credible reference on other religions, cults and the
> occult in the last 15 years!
Let's see...
Bob Larson is a demon slayer!”
The Learning Channel TV documentary
"Bob's an expert on cults and the supernatural.”
TV’s The Insider/Entertainment Tonight
“Larson’s all about getting right into the Devil’s face.”
National Geographic TV documentary
“Bob Larson is the man who can help fight the devil.”
“The Insider” TV program
“Bob Larson is one man versus the devil . . .a real life exorcist at
work."
ABC-TV “Good Morning America”
“The Devil meets his match in Bob Larson.”
MSNBC-TV Investigates
"Bob Larson confronts evil with spiritual warfare."
History Channel
“Many people are mesmerized by Larson’s public confrontations with
people who are possessed by devils."
CNN News
Maureen, where_have_you_been?!
> I have seen various web sites related to Christians telling people
> Larson is an apostate and is not recommended to be allowed in their
> churches. I have accounts from various people who have told details of
> their experiences concerning Bob Larson and the aftermaths of what
> happened, none of which are of credit to Larson or his DWJD team
> people.
>
> Larson's favorite slogan is " doing what Jesus did" which ironically
> and sadly he does not do. Whatever actual generosity or benevolence
> that does happen at his ironically named " Spiritual Freedom Church"
> goes on IN SPITE Of Larson not BECAUSE OF Larson. Assuming OC any
> actually does happen at his Scottsdale church.
This looks a lot like the anti-bl campaign form letter you've recently
e-mailed to some friends :)
> To go back to your claim, no matter how much Larson tries to use
> heavy doses of rose scented air freshener, he can't cover up the
> stench of his factual past.
Speaking of stench, have you given daddy Frank his bath yet tonight?
Or is tonight his turn to bathe you?
> I've noticed that after the devastating tornado in Joplin, a
number
> of churches organized relief efforts and came to help with the clean
> ups and other aid for those people. In none of the stories about that
> aspect of the subject that I have read has " Spiritual Freedom Church"
> of Scottsdale Arizona been mentioned as part of the volunteer groups.
> You are free, OC to prove me wrong.
Gladly. One of the wonderful things about Spiritual Freedom Church
International, Inc is the multitude of congregations around N.
American and abroad who fellowship with SFCI, Inc. Yes, Missouri is
covered :) Doors are being opened by SFCI, Inc. in the Name of
Jesus. Why don't you ask Pastor Vivian for the details. :)
Maureen, what have you done to lend a hand to those displaced by the
F5 tornado in Joplin?
> > As the BLFCult learned to its chagrin, when one door closes for BL, 5
> > more open. Now, care to explain why KS isn't a member of the Colorado
> > Bar Association? You have the floor. . .
>
> Long story, but in essence the Colorado Bar wimped out under pressure
> form Larson and his lawyers to stack the deck against Smith.
Nope. Wrong answer. Please drive-thru.
> > It really isn't worth mentioning, since the Court of Appeals decision
> > didn't harm BL one scintilla :)
>
> It IS worth mentioning because Larson LOST that case. Afraid of the
> whole TRUTH KSIC?
That is the whole truth, Maureen.
> Avoidance of the fact that Larson is persona non grata in most
> American churches due to his adultery,his fornications, his lies,
> greed, etc, noted.
>
> Funny that some Pentecostal churches allow traveling " exorcists" but
> not Larson......
BL doesn't exactly see the point in dancing around with venomous
snakes, mmmkay?
> Avoidance of mentioning the required admittance FEE noted.
The seminars are free. Even you can afford that.
> And, may I add, avoidance of why he resorted to hotel conference
> rooms AFTER the various "free admission" venues where certain various
> events happened
[!?]
The conference rooms have always been free admission, Maureen. I know
that it would be a bit much to ask you to pull your head out of your
ass for a few moments, but you really do need to take time out from
your vendetta to see what's going on around you...
>where the crowd turned AGAINST Larson noted.
1 John 2:19
>One
> incident, the one about the crying rape victim, showed Larson's cold
> callousness.
News to me. Where do you come up with this stuff?
> Spin it all you want, Rumplestilskin wannabe, you still can't
> transform his disease into healthy tissue. Gilding a turd is still
> gilding a turd.
And of course, each of these blasphemous remarks of yours will get you
an in your face reply from God.
kensmithiscool
> challenged Ken to prove his claims
"Kent, I don't think that you're stupid but rather, a bald-faced
liar."
-- Ken Smith
> and Kent did contribute money to
> BLM
Nope. Never happened.
larsonomicon
> I believe that Kent paid for membership as
> a hater and with the intention of burrowing
> inside and obtaining dirt to use for a big GOTCHA.
>
> His cohorts have been known to do such
> outrageous and obsessive things.
>
>> that he
>> did fall for your lies, and when his eyes were opened up with the
>> FACTS he did the honorable thing and stopped giving you money. If
that
>> could happen to a sincere Christian
>
> Sincere Christian, or a hater burrowing inside
> to find dirt to use for a big GOTCHA game?
>
>> who was a BLM supporter, then it
>> could happen to any of your suckers. And your greed and vanity
needs
>> the people to believe your lies too much to allow the truth about
you
>> to come out.
>
> You are a self styled pagan waging religious war on Bob Larson.
You have it locked here. It is more than likely that the operation
against Bob was coordinated and internal.
Greegor
KBW > I did no such thing.
larsonomicon > Oh come on Kent, stop it.
So Kent now DENIES Smith's
bizarre legal actions and troubles.
Notice the exact venue, Kent?
http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2010/07/09-1503.pdf
* After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel has
determined
unanimously that oral argument would not materially assist the
determination of
this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 34(a)(2); 10th Cir. R. 34.1(G). The
case is
therefore ordered submitted without oral argument. This order and
judgment is
not binding precedent, except under the doctrines of law of the case,
res judicata,
and collateral estoppel. It may be cited, however, for its persuasive
value
consistent with Fed. R. App. P. 32.1 and 10th Cir. R. 32.1.
-2-
STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
prohibited him from filing any new actions pro se in the United States
District
should not be ordered to pay $3,000 to the Clerk of the United States
Court of
larsonomicon
Verrry interesting...
I smell a pranknet operation.
larsonomicon
> Maureen, what have you done to lend a hand to those displaced by the
> F5 tornado in Joplin?
"Pagans" don't heal strife, they cause it.
Greegor
I believe that Kent paid for membership as
a hater and with the intention of burrowing
inside and obtaining dirt to use for a big GOTCHA.
His cohorts have been known to do such
outrageous and obsessive things.
LOL Not necessarily the same
outfit, just similar MO and pathology.
The angry aspergers and arrested development
kind of psychopaths on usenet think it's
hilarious to cause harm to others.
See the usenet use of the GOTCHA expression BURN!
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=burn
2. burn
An exclamatory response, generally used by a third party
after someone has just received an insult.
"She said you had a small penis? Oh, BURN!"
3. Burn
To be thoroughly humiliated or insulted to the point where
you cannot return with a comeback.
Fred was "burned" by his friends for admitting to liking Limp Bizkit.
TWellingfan
> Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Moe > Long story, but in essence the Colorado
> >Moe > Bar wimped out under pressure [from]
> >Moe > Larson and his lawyers to stack the deck against Smith.
>
> >larsonomicon > That is completely in contradiction to
> >larsonomicon > the 2010 ruling in which the Court
> >larsonomicon > says he is abusing the system.
>
> >You've had the link to the US Supreme Court ruling from
> >the year 2010 shoved in your face and you're still
> >being an imbecile, posting in DENIAL of what it says, Moe!
Speaking of imbecile...
Greg, how's it feel to be KSIC-ko's patsy?
I realize that you have some serious comprehension problems but even
you aren't so damn stupid that you can't see KSIC is using you and you
are dumb enough to fall for it.
As for Smith, if he wants to answer your accusations he is free to do
so. MY focus concerning Smith is his connection regarding that con
artist Bobbie E, Larson, a televangelist tapeworm in the Body of
Christ.
>
Dang greg, are you THAT stupid you don't see ho you are being
manipulated?
Moe
>
> >[ could use some reformatting, raw cut and paste]
>
(( rest of long crap deleted))
Kent Wills
>> But the rub for YOU is that Kent was a financial supporter,
>
>I believe that Kent paid for membership as
>a hater and with the intention of burrowing
>inside and obtaining dirt to use for a big GOTCHA.
>
You also believe that my parents are dead AND alive, at the same
time.
You also believe I live all over the U.S. and one place in
Canada, all at the same time.
And so on.
If you believe something, well, it's fairly strong evidence that
you don't believe it at the same time.
>His cohorts have been known to do such
>outrageous and obsessive things.
You and I are not cohorts.
Why are you LYING about this?
Kent Wills
[...]
>> Truth be told,
>
> Never from you.
He LOVES his demon of lying too much.
>
>> BL came out smelling like a rose. �
>
>Actually he didn't. You can claim otherwise but the FACTS are that
>Larson LOST stations airing TB rapidly after Ken Smith AND OTHERS did
>exposes on Bob Larson, that he is persona non grata in many Christian
>churches in America, so much so that Larson had to make his own church
>franchise to give him the appearance of legitimacy, like his mail
>order ministerial degree, and that Larson had to liquidate BLM soon
>after shutting off the mic. You also forgot to mention that his
>various attempts to regain being on TV with his own shows have ended
>in failures, including after the Crouches got tired of his crap on
>their station and dumped him unceremoniously.
Lar$on wasn't even aware that he was canceled until a caller
asked him about it.
While one could argue that this indicates Lar$on's ego is such
that he didn't feel the NEED to watch his own show, the real kick is
that it means the Crouches didn't even bother to pick up the phone to
let him know.
>You forgot his " Real
>Exorcist" " reality" series in the UK was canceled due to viewers
>complaints, and while four eps of that crappy series was aired on the
>SyFy network, the facts about that are less than praiseworthy
>concerning Larson.
The guys from the "Stuff You Should Know" pod cast mentioned
Lar$on's show. Chuck said something to the effect of, "That's it's on
SciFi should tell you something."
Even they saw Lar$on's con and realized Lar$on has NO spiritual
authority.
>Larson suckered the producer of "Joan of Arcadia"
>to make a "drama" series base don what he claims is his life as an
>exorcist, yet the actual pilot (which never sold) ad so many changes
>that it did not resemble Larson at all. As for his so-called "new"
>"reality series" " Possessed", I should mention that it is not being
>aired anywhere on satellite or cable but only on Larson's self
>publicity video web accounts.
>
Not a bad way for an unknown to get noticed, but given how Lar$on
brags on himself, it's a real blow to have to resort to that.
>And as much as he tries to claim otherwise, his " foremost authority"
>claims about himself have no basis in reality and in fact he hasn't
>been cited as a credible reference on other religions, cults and the
>occult in the last 15 years!
>
Why would they? Better, I would think, to cite the original
authors rather than Lar$on's barely hidden plagiarism.
> I have seen various web sites related to Christians telling people
>Larson is an apostate and is not recommended to be allowed in their
>churches. I have accounts from various people who have told details of
>their experiences concerning Bob Larson and the aftermaths of what
>happened, none of which are of credit to Larson or his DWJD team
>people.
>
> Larson's favorite slogan is " doing what Jesus did" which ironically
>and sadly he does not do. Whatever actual generosity or benevolence
>that does happen at his ironically named " Spiritual Freedom Church"
>goes on IN SPITE Of Larson not BECAUSE OF Larson. Assuming OC any
>actually does happen at his Scottsdale church.
"This is the most important part of this ministry!"
-- Bob Larson holding up a wallet
>
> To go back to your claim, no matter how much Larson tries to use
>heavy doses of rose scented air freshener, he can't cover up the
>stench of his factual past.
>
>
>>That particular
>> witch-hunt against BL
>
>(( raises eyebrow)) " witch-hunt against BL" huh? Really?
>
> (( derisive snort)) KSIC, that coming from you is amusing. Not to
>mention a poor choice of words.
>
> So its all right for Larson to DO it to others ( Bill Clinton, gays,
>Native Americans, etc) but all of a sudden its a "witch-hunt" when the
>REAL Bob Larson is exposed.
>
His demon of lying is really putting in the over time.
> ((shakes head)) So Charles Manson as innocent. huh?
>
>
>>is just one glaring example of the enemy's
>> agenda against the mission of the Ministry. � Take a look around.
>> Have you visited the SFC? �It really is breathtaking.
>
> Ah yes the pride in the property, in the ego and vanity of Bob
>Larson, in the riches and gold. An monument to Bob Larson.
>
Pride goes before the fall.
>Not one word about actually serving Jesus Christ, I've noticed.
Lar$on doesn't serve Jesus Christ.
>But
>then Scottsdale isn't exactly a place where what Jesus taught His
>followers to do concerning the less fortunate can be to actually
>practice what Jesus taught. IOW not ACTUALLY " doing hat Jesus did".
>
> I've noticed that after the devastating tornado in Joplin, a number
>of churches organized relief efforts and came to help with the clean
>ups and other aid for those people. In none of the stories about that
>aspect of the subject that I have read has " Spiritual Freedom Church"
>of Scottsdale Arizona been mentioned as part of the volunteer groups.
>You are free, OC to prove me wrong.
>
Helping would mean spending money on things other than first
class airfare and five star hotel rooms.
>>
>> As the BLFCult learned to its chagrin, when one door closes for BL, 5
>> more open. �Now, care to explain why KS isn't a member of the Colorado
>> Bar Association? �You have the floor. . .
>
>Long story, but in essence the Colorado Bar wimped out under pressure
>form Larson and his lawyers to stack the deck against Smith. Larson's
>personal grudge and your obvious pleasure about it shows more of how
>UNCHRISTIAN you are, Bob.
>
I find it mildly amusing that Lar$on is reduced to whining about
Ken.
>>
>> > KSIC forgot
>> > to mention that Larson sued Smith but lost his lawsuit in a court of
>> > law.
>>
>> It really isn't worth mentioning, since the Court of Appeals decision
>> didn't harm BL one scintilla :)
>
>It IS worth mentioning because Larson LOST that case. Afraid of the
>whole TRUTH KSIC?
>
I note he ran away when I asked him what the judge stated
regarding Lar$on's attempt to get Ken to pay his (Lar$on's) legal
fees.
>>
>> > �One of the factors that keeps Larson in the fringes of whacko
>> > Christianity where anything he tries to get the vanity attention from
>> > the mainstream he desperately needs always falls flat is that Larson's
>> > reputation among his own Christian bretherin is lo indeed, so lo he
>> > holds his " conferences" in hotel meeting rooms instead of churches.
>>
>> As does Pastor Rod Parsley and many, many others. �Those who are in
>> serious need of deliverance more than likely won't step foot inside a
>> church.
>
>Avoidance of the fact that Larson is persona non grata in most
>American churches due to his adultery,his fornications, his lies,
>greed, etc, noted.
>
> Funny that some Pentecostal churches allow traveling " exorcists" but
>not Larson......
>
They have their standards. And Lar$on's con game doesn't meet
them.
>
>>�They just won't do it! �They're more comfortable in an
>> environment like an average conference room without the plush pews and
>> the pioused preacher handing out platitudes.
>
> Avoidance of the various REAL reasons why Larson does that noted.
He can't. His demon of lying will not permit Lar$on to admit the
truth.
>Avoidance of what he actually does before his " exorcisms" noted.
The "hype the crowd" videos!
>Avoidance of mentioning the required admittance FEE noted.
Lar$on no longer has the radio show to offset the cost of renting
the conference room at the super 8.
>
> And, may I add, avoidance of why he resorted to hotel conference
>rooms AFTER the various "free admission" venues where certain various
>events happened where the crowd turned AGAINST Larson noted. One
>incident, the one about the crying rape victim, showed Larson's cold
>callousness.
>
> Spin it all you want, Rumplestilskin wannabe, you still can't
>transform his disease into healthy tissue. Gilding a turd is still
>gilding a turd.
And Lar$on caries the stench with him.
>
>>
>> Oh yes, for those of you in the Sunshine State, in the Lakeland area,
>> that's Lakeland, Florida. . . BL will be at Ignited Church on November
>> 17th. �Mark your calendars for an exciting night!
>
>More SELF promotion....
>
>>
>> > �The truth about Ken Smith vs. Bob Larson is not something KSIC wants
>> > to be shown, so he's doing a little credibility bashing just in case
>> > those media outlets he's bragging that are paying attention to Larson
>> > don't do some digging and find out they've been lied to by Larson and
>> > his cult followers.
>>
>> Hey! �The future is looking bright -- gotta wear shades :) �Where are
>> your shades Maureen?
>
> Come show your face and see, coward.
Crickets on stand-by.
--
Death: Weight doesn't come into it. My steed has carried armies. My
steed has carried cities. Yea, he hath carried all things in their due
time. But he's not going to carry you three.
War: Why not?
Death: It's a matter of the look of the thing.
War: It's going to look pretty good, then, isn't it, the One Horseman
and Three Pedestrians of the Apocalypse.
(from Sourcery, by Terry Pratchett)
Kent Wills
[Post edit removed]
>
>http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2010/07/09-1503.pdf
>
>G > Kent and Moe:
>G > Will you acknowledge what the Judge wrote in this opinion?
>G > Or will you DENY what it says and it's meaning?
>
>> The judge did write it.
>> Why are you OBSESSED with Ken Smith? You've never had any
>>contact with the man, yet you are devoting so much of your time to
>>him. Do you honestly think yours is the behavior of the mentally
>>sound?
>> Will you be OBSESSED with him for as long as you have been with a
>>man named Glen? You claimed you've been obsessed with Glen for more
>>than 10 years.
>> It's so sad that you truly are as mentally ill as you present
>>on-line. It's NOT an act.
>> Let your mental health care professional, no matter his/her
>>title, know about your most recent OBSESSION.
>
>Kent barely and begrudgingly acknowledged it!
Liar.
Answer the questions I asked, coward.
>
>How about you Moe?
I'm not Moe.
Now, answer the questions I asked, coward.
Kent Wills
>On Jun 14, 1:56�pm, kensmithiscool wrote:
>> Are you still sour over the fact that your dirty
>> little secret in Iowa as a multiple convicted
>> felon slipped out of the bag? �Did you ever
>> pay that $2, 000 fine to the State of Iowa?�Tsk. Tsk.
>
>Kent had YEARS to pay off a few thousand
>under his conditions of parole, and didn't.
Projecting your still owing over $8000.00 for your convictions
for BEATING your ex-wife only servers to further PROVE you really are
as mentally ill as you present.
Don't worry. I'm sure I am the only person to see your
DESPERATION, Greg. LOL
>The parole authorities filed to revoke him
>but just weeks before Kent's scheduled
>revocation hearing Kent's FOLKS paid
>the few thousand so Kent wouldn't be
>revoked and sent to prison for 10 years.
So now it's back to being parole?
I do wish you would pick a classification and stick with it. I
understand that you have trouble keeping track of your MANY lies, but
give it some effort.
Your switching from parole to probation to parole only servers to
further entrench the TRUTH that you are lying.
But don't lose any sleep. I'm sure no one but me has ever caught
this LIE from you. LOL
>
>The payment was made something like
>3 weeks ahead of the scheduled revocation
>hearing, and the hearing was canceled.
>
Yet you claimed for weeks after that it occurred. Then you
claimed it was canceled because money was OWED.
After several weeks, someone was able to dumb it down to a level
you could understand and you accepted that it wouldn't have been
canceled because money was owed.
>The online record under "FILINGS"
>confirms this.
>
>Knowing the hearing was cancelled,
>Kent actually ramped up taunting for
>others to show up at the hearing.
>
You implied you'd be there. Being the coward you actually are,
you stayed at home.
It wasn't a total lose for me. I was able to find your
conviction for OWI. The one you claimed was to have been expunged
because of your stay at rehab.
Your drunken (unless he lied) buddy Kenneth Robert Pangborn
(http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com) claimed to have been subpoenaed to
show up.
Yes, he claimed he was invited by the court, but as I was able to
PROVE, no one gets invited, but subpoenaed.
Odd that he wasn't aware that it was canceled. More odd that he
didn't show up. After all, failing to honor a subpoena is a serious
offence. Unless the claim was a drunken lie, of course.
Do you think Pangborn broke the law, or lied? I understand your
answer will be nothing more than your opinion. That is, IF you can
cease soiling yourself long enough to actually answer.
>Kent's opponents had already seen online
>that the hearing was cancelled, and merely
>laughed.
>
Yet you continued to claim it happened for weeks.
How do you explain this?
>Kent apparently thought this charade had
>embarassed his opponents and brought it
>up several times since.
>
First, you are only one person. Your MANY sock puppets do not
count as other people.
Second, I bring up that you claimed it was canceled because money
was owed.
I'll start bringing it up more since you KNOW my name in real
life, which means you KNOW it's not Kent.
Do you regret admitting to having been in possession of a copy of
the police report?
>
>Moe made excuses for Ken Smith by posting:
>Moe > Ken Smith doesn't post on usenet anymore
>Moe > because Usenet is a dying forum and he
>Moe > has better things to do with his life now.
>Moe > He made an announcement some time
>Moe > ago he was closing his attention on Bob Larson.
>
>G > Damn that man.
>G > He should have kept on raving as part of your
>G > TWENTY SIX YEAR campaign of stalking
>G > and net harassment, right Moe?
>
>Moe > Jealous, cyber stalker?
>
>You're a psychopath, Maureen.
You have gone out of your way to PROVE you are mentally ill.
However, being mentally ill doesn't mean being a psychopath. Still,
with a score of 28 on the test, people should keep a close eye on you.
Kent Wills
<kensmit...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Jun 15, 6:47 pm, TWellingfan <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> > BL came out smelling like a rose.
>>
>> Actually he didn't. You can claim otherwise but the FACTS are that
>> Larson LOST stations airing TB rapidly after Ken Smith AND OTHERS did
>> exposes on Bob Larson, that he is persona non grata in many Christian
>> churches in America,
>
>
>Obviously you have your facts wrong. No surprise there. There are
>those churches in N. America that quite frankly just don't get what BL
>is all about.
Clearly they do.
>They don't get what the mission of the Ministry is
>about.
It appears they do get that the ministry s all about conning
people.
>Quite frankly, they're too chicken. They want to be coddled.
>They'll often say, "Oh we can't do that. We don't want to offend
>anyone." And much like Maureen, they are clearly ignorant to basic
>Bible doctrine. If there was ever a punchline to the joke "What does
>a nutty Pagan and a group of spineless Christians have in common?"
>that would be it!
>
I wasn't aware you and Moe had anything in common.
>
>>You also forgot to mention that his
>> various attempts to regain being on TV with his own shows have ended
>> in failures, including after the Crouches got tired of his crap on
>> their station and dumped him unceremoniously.
>
>
>You forgot to mention that BL left them. Too many internal problems
>at that network, as well as Paul's personal demons made it easy for BL
>to divest himself from that mess.
>
Then why didn't you know about the cancellation of your show? Why
did a caller inform you of it?
>
>
>
>>You forgot his " Real
>> Exorcist" " reality" series in the UK was canceled due to viewers
>> complaints,
>
>
>That's news to me. Where do you come up with this stuff? The UK has
>always been good to BL. Did you happen to read the recent Fabulous
>piece? You know, the UK's most read magazine. Over 4 million
>readers!
>
Your attempt to distract from Moe's comment is telling.
>
>
>
>> And as much as he tries to claim otherwise, his " foremost authority"
>> claims about himself have no basis in reality and in fact he hasn't
>> been cited as a credible reference on other religions, cults and the
>> occult in the last 15 years!
>
>
>Let's see...
>
>
>Bob Larson is a demon slayer!”
>The Learning Channel TV documentary
>
>"Bob's an expert on cults and the supernatural.”
>TV’s The Insider/Entertainment Tonight
>
>“Larson’s all about getting right into the Devil’s face.”
>National Geographic TV documentary
>
>“Bob Larson is the man who can help fight the devil.”
> “The Insider” TV program
>
>“Bob Larson is one man versus the devil . . .a real life exorcist at
>work."
> ABC-TV “Good Morning America”
>
>“The Devil meets his match in Bob Larson.”
>MSNBC-TV Investigates
>
>"Bob Larson confronts evil with spiritual warfare."
> History Channel
>
>“Many people are mesmerized by Larson’s public confrontations with
>people who are possessed by devils."
> CNN News
>
If not for the fact that you admitted to being Lar$on (or did you
lie?), I would worry you're obsessed with the man.
Since you admitted to being him, it's understandable that you
would know what you've done.
>
>Maureen, where_have_you_been?!
>
>
>
>
>> I have seen various web sites related to Christians telling people
>> Larson is an apostate and is not recommended to be allowed in their
>> churches. I have accounts from various people who have told details of
>> their experiences concerning Bob Larson and the aftermaths of what
>> happened, none of which are of credit to Larson or his DWJD team
>> people.
>>
>> Larson's favorite slogan is " doing what Jesus did" which ironically
>> and sadly he does not do. Whatever actual generosity or benevolence
>> that does happen at his ironically named " Spiritual Freedom Church"
>> goes on IN SPITE Of Larson not BECAUSE OF Larson. Assuming OC any
>> actually does happen at his Scottsdale church.
>
>
>
>This looks a lot like the anti-bl campaign form letter you've recently
>e-mailed to some friends :)
>
Interesting. I wasn't included in this supposed E-mail.
>
>
>
>> To go back to your claim, no matter how much Larson tries to use
>> heavy doses of rose scented air freshener, he can't cover up the
>> stench of his factual past.
>
>
>Speaking of stench, have you given daddy Frank his bath yet tonight?
>Or is tonight his turn to bathe you?
>
It's already been PROVED that Greg's claim regarding Moe and a
man named Frank was, and is, nothing more than a lie.
Keep in mind that Greg himself offered the PROOF when he claimed
Moe had cable access. Frank lives in an area where cable access isn't
possible.
>
>
> > I've noticed that after the devastating tornado in Joplin, a
>number
>> of churches organized relief efforts and came to help with the clean
>> ups and other aid for those people. In none of the stories about that
>> aspect of the subject that I have read has " Spiritual Freedom Church"
>> of Scottsdale Arizona been mentioned as part of the volunteer groups.
>> You are free, OC to prove me wrong.
>
>
>Gladly. One of the wonderful things about Spiritual Freedom Church
>International, Inc
Your church is a CORPORATION?
>is the multitude of congregations around N.
>American and abroad who fellowship with SFCI, Inc. Yes, Missouri is
>covered :) Doors are being opened by SFCI, Inc. in the Name of
>Jesus. Why don't you ask Pastor Vivian for the details. :)
>
>Maureen, what have you done to lend a hand to those displaced by the
>F5 tornado in Joplin?
>
Probably more than you.
>
>
>
>
>> > As the BLFCult learned to its chagrin, when one door closes for BL, 5
>> > more open. Now, care to explain why KS isn't a member of the Colorado
>> > Bar Association? You have the floor. . .
>>
>> Long story, but in essence the Colorado Bar wimped out under pressure
>> form Larson and his lawyers to stack the deck against Smith.
>
>
>
>Nope. Wrong answer. Please drive-thru.
>
You may deny the truth all you want or need. It won't cease
being the truth.
>
>
>> > It really isn't worth mentioning, since the Court of Appeals decision
>> > didn't harm BL one scintilla :)
>>
>> It IS worth mentioning because Larson LOST that case. Afraid of the
>> whole TRUTH KSIC?
>
>
>
>That is the whole truth, Maureen.
>
>
At last you admit that you actually lost, even when first glance
makes it appear that you won.
>
>
>> Avoidance of the fact that Larson is persona non grata in most
>> American churches due to his adultery,his fornications, his lies,
>> greed, etc, noted.
>>
>> Funny that some Pentecostal churches allow traveling " exorcists" but
>> not Larson......
>
>
>BL doesn't exactly see the point in dancing around with venomous
>snakes, mmmkay?
>
Neither do Pentecostals.
What's your point, Bob?
>
>
>> Avoidance of mentioning the required admittance FEE noted.
>
>
>The seminars are free. Even you can afford that.
>
>
They haven't been free for a while now.
>
>> And, may I add, avoidance of why he resorted to hotel conference
>> rooms AFTER the various "free admission" venues where certain various
>> events happened
>
>
>[!?]
>
>The conference rooms have always been free admission, Maureen. I know
>that it would be a bit much to ask you to pull your head out of your
>ass for a few moments, but you really do need to take time out from
>your vendetta to see what's going on around you...
>
They are no longer free, though I expect you to offer a free one
very soon just so that you can claim Moe lied.
>
>>where the crowd turned AGAINST Larson noted.
>
>
>1 John 2:19
>
>
>
>>One
>> incident, the one about the crying rape victim, showed Larson's cold
>> callousness.
>
>
>News to me. Where do you come up with this stuff?
>
From you, Bob.
Or do you not know what is placed on your web site under your
name?
>
>> Spin it all you want, Rumplestilskin wannabe, you still can't
>> transform his disease into healthy tissue. Gilding a turd is still
>> gilding a turd.
>
>
>And of course, each of these blasphemous remarks of yours will get you
>an in your face reply from God.
>
What will you do when you are in front of Him?
Your demon of lying won't be of any use to you then.
--
Nessun maggior dolore
Che ricordarsi del tempo felice
Nella miseria.
Kent Wills
>G > Kent denied Ken Smith's bizarre legal actions and troubles.
>
>KBW > I did no such thing.
>
>larsonomicon > Oh come on Kent, stop it.
>
>So Kent now DENIES Smith's
>bizarre legal actions and troubles.
>
I deny them being bizarre.
Not quite the same as you dishonestly present.
>Notice the exact venue, Kent?
Yes. And?
>
>http://ca10.washburnlaw.edu/cases/2010/07/09-1503.pdf
>
[snip your C&P of the text from the link]
Your DESPERATION is showing again. Or is that still?
kensmithiscool
> >You forgot to mention that BL left them. Too many internal problems
> >at that network, as well as Paul's personal demons made it easy for BL
> >to divest himself from that mess.
>
> Then why didn't you know about the cancellation of your show?
> Why did a caller inform you of it?
The show's cancellation is an obvious pipe dream of Kent's. The show
was never cancelled as you put it, and BL left the network for reasons
stated. And no caller informed BL of it. Kent likes to make things
up as he goes.
> >Speaking of stench, have you given daddy Frank his bath yet tonight?
> >Or is tonight his turn to bathe you?
>
> It's already been PROVED that Greg's claim regarding Moe and a
> man named Frank was, and is, nothing more than a lie.
What claim? You can't be referring to Greg having provided evidence
that Frank is her daddy and that she still lives at home. Public
record is irrefutable... as you personally can attest...
> Keep in mind that Greg himself offered the PROOF when he claimed
> Moe had cable access. Frank lives in an area where cable access isn't
> possible.
Prove it.
>
> >BL doesn't exactly see the point in dancing around with venomous
> >snakes, mmmkay?
>
> Neither do Pentecostals.
Here you go psycho http://goo.gl/u7jbK
> >The seminars are free. Even you can afford that.
>
> They haven't been free for a while now.
The seminar always been free friend.
>
>
> >> And, may I add, avoidance of why he resorted to hotel conference
> >> rooms AFTER the various "free admission" venues where certain various
> >> events happened
>
> >[!?]
>
> >The conference rooms have always been free admission, Maureen. I know
> >that it would be a bit much to ask you to pull your head out of your
> >ass for a few moments, but you really do need to take time out from
> >your vendetta to see what's going on around you...
>
> They are no longer free, though I expect you to offer a free one
> very soon just so that you can claim Moe lied.
http://www.boblarson.org/events.html
Thanks for playing, garage burglar; please drive-thru. . .