Is this OUR Gregory Scott Hanson's photo with crim record ??

[Greegor]

KBW > Even though it's not actually the Greg Hanson
KBW > we know, our Greg will claim it is.

Kent's recurrent psychopathic deception.

KBW > According to Greg everyone with the same
KBW > first and > last name are all the same person,

Kent desperately hopes to confuse his
accurate ID using this deception fully
revealing his psychopathic reasoning.

KBW > so unless he's going to claim his own
KBW > standards were and are nothing more
KBW > than acts of deception, he will have to
KBW > claim this information is about him.

Kent even grandstands based on his psychopathic reasoning.

http://immaculatecongestion.blogspot.com/

Notice that Kent had to convince his own mother to
use a fictitious middle name, hoping that deception
would help him evade being fully ID'd, after the fact.


http://z.hubpages.com/u/1051348_f520.jpg

http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.visitors/msg/7bb21a6718c8504c

Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:46:12 [...]
KBW 2003 > I was born in Krakow, Poland on
KBW 2003 > Jan. 8, 1969. I grew up there, and
KBW 2003 > in the mid 80's I came to the US.

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.

http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=6157973

It was Kent's second
felony for thieving, and he got a misdemeanor
conviction for using a minor as an accomplice.

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

http://gis.co.benton.ar.us/website/basemap/viewer.htm

Scroll to bottom right OWNER NAME input and type in
Wills Family Trust and hit enter.
Or put in a name of Wills, or put a parcel ID like
02-00444-000 or 15-09938-000 in the blank
marked parcel ID and then hit enter.

15-09938-000 WILLS FAMILY TRUST-FRED A JR & JANET R
8250 WILLS CT 57390 14-19-28

Kent Bradley Wills, 1110 South F Street, Rogers, Arkansas 72756-5520
County parcel # 02-00444-000 (Owned by Kent's folks Fred and Janet.)


https://www.dobsearch.com/people-finder/view.php?t=1292564048&sessid=a94cd83c7e3907c150f01aeb088a3f2b&searchnum=62049617016

KENT B WILLS 42
ROGERS, AR 72756
ANKENY, IA 50021
ANKENY, IA 50023
MARSHALLTOWN, IA 50158
BARTLETT, IL 60103
HANOVER PARK, IL 60133
[ 6 Unique Addresses ]
[ 7 Unique Telephone Numbers ]

WILLS, FRED A JR (Age 67) (as of Oct 2011)
WILLS, FREDERICK ALFRED (Age 67)
WILLS, JANET RAE (Age 64)
WILLS, TIFFANY J (Age 38)
WILLS, FRED A
WILLS, JANET R
WILLS, F A
WILLS, FREDERICK A JR (Age 67)
WILLS, KELLY M

A search based on Kent's OLD phone number before area code
reassignment.

http://www.zabasearch.com/reverse_search/results.php?getphone=5019254001
( Link no longer works for this as of 2012 )

TIFFANY WILLS Born 07/1973 (501) 925-4001
8250 ELM ROGERS, AR 72756 County: Benton Date Recorded: 02/20/2004

KENT WILLS Born 01/1969 (501) 925-4001
8250 ELM ROGERS, AR 72756 County: Benton Date Recorded: 08/08/2003

FRED WILLS Born 11/1943 (501) 925-4001
8250 ELM ROGERS, AR 72756 County: Benton Date Recorded: 10/15/2004

http://www.google.com/search?q=kent+bradley+wills&tbm=isch
Photo of Kent's shack at 1110 South F Street, Rogers, Arkansas
72756-5520
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&biw=1020&bih=602&q=1110+South+F+Street,+Rogers,+Arkansas+72756-5520
In the PHOTO (left side) look for the RED CHAIR on the front
"stoop"! LOL

http://www.peoplefinders.com/search/searchpreview.aspx?searchtype=people-name&fn=kent&ln=wills&mn=&city=rogers&state=AR

http://www.peoplefinders.com/search/preview.aspx?searchtype=people-name&item-id=1-185452778&fn=kent&mn=&ln=wills&city=rogers&state=AR&age=43




http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=beeheh&searchTerm=eHdU.Zbaa.aadj.eabQ&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ia-supreme-court/1360099.html

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 31 / 04-0202
Filed May 6, 2005

STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
KENT BRADLEY WILLS,
Appellant.

Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk
County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.

Defendant appeals claiming ineffective
assistance of counsel. AFFIRMED.

Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender,
and Tricia Johnston, Assistant State
Appellate Defender, for appellant.

Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin
Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, John P.
Sarcone, County Attorney, and John Judisch,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.

WIGGINS, Justice.

Kent Wills appeals his conviction for
second-degree burglary contending that
an attached garage is a separate occupied
structure from that of the living quarters
of the residence. In this appeal, we must
determine whether trial counsel was
ineffective for (1) failing to move for
judgment of acquittal on the basis there
was insufficient evidence to convict Wills
of second-degree burglary when he entered
an attached garage of a residence when no
persons were present in the garage, but
when persons were present in the living
quarters; and (2) failing to object to a
jury instruction based on this same
argument. Because we find there was no
legal basis for the motion for judgment
of acquittal or the objection to the jury
instruction, Wills' trial counsel was not
ineffective. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the district court.

I. Background Facts and Proceedings.

Around 1 a.m., an Ankeny resident called
the local police to report that a car
alarm sounded in the resident's
neighborhood. The city dispatched a police
officer to the location. Observing nothing
unusual, the officer left the area, only
to be stopped a couple of blocks later
by a person who informed the officer he
had witnessed someone running from the
area of the car alarm. As the officer
started driving back to the area of the
car alarm, he noticed a person walking
on the sidewalk. The officer asked the
person, a minor, if he had noticed anybody
running from the area. The minor answered
that he had not. While the officer and
another officer were speaking to the minor,
another resident of the neighborhood
arrived in her car and informed the
officers that she had observed two people,
one of whom was heavy set with a blinking
light on his back pocket, walking in the
area of her neighbor's residence. She
observed the heavier-set individual, later
identified as Wills, enter her neighbor's
attached garage through an unlocked service
door. She further observed a smaller
individual standing by a van parked in
the neighbor's driveway.

The officers eventually let the minor leave
even though they found a large amount of
coins, a flashlight, and an electronic
pocket organizer in his pockets. After
releasing the minor, the police officers
drove to the residence where the neighbor
observed the two suspicious people and
woke the owner. The owner, his wife,
and two daughters were in the residence
sleeping at the time. After a search
of his vehicles, the owner discovered
change and an electronic pocket organizer
were missing from the vehicles. The
owner's daughter reported a diamond ring
and some change were missing from her
vehicle. The officers then contacted
the minor's parents, who informed the
officers the minor was with Wills. After
the officers questioned the minor again,
he admitted his involvement in the theft
and implicated Wills in the burglary.
Although Wills denied involvement in the
burglary, the officers arrested him.

The State filed a trial information
charging Wills with second-degree
burglary. The State later amended the
information to include two additional
charges of burglary in the third degree
and using a juvenile to commit an
indictable offense.

The jury returned a verdict finding Wills
guilty of the crimes of burglary in the
second degree, burglary in the third
degree, and using a juvenile to commit
an indictable offense. Wills appeals his
conviction for second-degree burglary
claiming ineffective assistance of
counsel.

II. Scope of Review.

Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
are derived from the Sixth Amendment of the
United States Constitution. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-86, 104 S.
Ct. 2052, 2063-64, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 691-93
(1984). Our review for a claim involving
violations of the Constitution is de novo.
State v. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d 95, 100
(Iowa 2004). We normally preserve
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
for postconviction relief actions. State
v. Carter, 602 N.W. 2d 818, 820 (Iowa 1999).
However, we will address such claims on
direct appeal when the record is sufficient
to permit a ruling. State v. Artzer,
609 N.W.2d 526, 531 (Iowa 2000). The
appellate record in the present case is
sufficient to allow us to address Wills'
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
on direct appeal.

In order for a defendant to succeed on a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
the defendant must prove: (1) counsel
failed to perform an essential duty and
(2) prejudice resulted. Id. Prejudice
results when "there is a reasonable
probability that, but for the counsel's
unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different."
State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 378
(Iowa 1998) (quoting Strickland, 466
U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068,
80 L. Ed. 2d at 698). Wills' arguments
also raise issues of statutory
interpretation, which we review for
correction of errors at law. State v.
Wolford Corp., 689 N.W.2d 471, 473 (Iowa 2004).

III. Analysis.

To find Wills guilty of burglary in the
second degree, the State had to prove
Wills perpetrated a burglary "in or
upon an occupied structure in which one
or more persons are present . . . ." Iowa
Code § 713.5(2) (2003) (emphasis added).

In this appeal, Wills first contends his
trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to move for a judgment of acquittal on
the basis there was insufficient evidence
to support a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage, there were persons
present in or upon the occupied structure.
Wills concedes the garage was an occupied
structure, but argues the living quarters
and the attached garage are separate and
independent occupied structures; therefore,
the jury could not have found there were
people present in the attached garage
at the time of the burglary.

The Code defines an "occupied structure" as:

[A]ny building, structure, appurtenances
to buildings and structures, land, water
or air vehicle, or similar place adapted
for overnight accommodation of persons,
or occupied by persons for the purpose of
carrying on business or other activity
therein, or for the storage or safekeeping
of anything of value. Such a structure
is an "occupied structure" whether or not
a person is actually present.

Id. § 702.12.

Wills relies on State v. Smothers, 590
N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 1999), to argue the
garage and the living quarters are separate
and independent occupied structures. In
Smothers, two separate and distinct
businesses connected by interior fire doors
were operated in the same structure.
590 N.W.2d at 723. We held the defendant
committed two burglaries by entering each
business because "[t]he facility's
construction history and physical make-up
demonstrate that the portions are
independent working units which constitute
'[a] combination of materials to form a
construction for occupancy [or] use.'" Id.
Smothers is not at odds with the present
case because the living quarters and the
garage are not separate or independent
units of the residence.

Our review of the record reveals the garage
in question was a three-car attached garage
separated from the living quarters by a
door. The same roof covered the garage as
the rest of the residence. The living
quarters surrounded the garage on two sides.
It was structurally no different from any
other room in the residence.

The garage was a functional part of the
residence. On the night of the incident,
the door was unlocked. The owner of the
residence used two stalls in the garage to
park the family vehicles. The owner used
the third stall for his motorcycle. As
such, the garage and the living quarters
are a single "structure" or "building"
functioning as an integral part of the
family residence. Thus, the residence
including the garage is a single
"occupied structure" under section 702.12.
See, e.g., People v. Ingram, 48 Cal. Rptr.
2d 256 (Ct. App.1995) (holding defendant's
entry into an attached garage constituted
first-degree burglary because the garage
was attached to the house; therefore,
burglary of the garage was burglary of
an inhabited dwelling house); People v.
Cunningham, 637 N.E.2d 1247, 1252 (Ill.
App. Ct. 1994) (holding "ordinarily an
attached garage is a 'dwelling' because
it is part of the structure in which
the owner or occupant lives");
State v. Lara, 587 P.2d 52, 53
(N.M. Ct. App. 1978) (holding "burglary
of the [attached] garage was burglary of
the dwelling house because the garage was
a part of the structure used as living
quarters"); People v. Green, 141 A.D.2d
760, 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) (holding
"[s]ince the garage in the present case
was structurally part of a building
which was used for overnight lodging of
various persons, it must be considered
as part of a dwelling"); White v. State,
630 S.W. 2d 340, 342 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982)
(holding an attached garage under the
same roof as the home would be considered
a habitation within the purview of the
penal code because the garage is a
structure appurtenant to and connected
to the house); State v. Murbach, 843 P.
2d 551, 553 (Wash. Ct. App 1993)
(holding the definition of a dwelling
under Washington's burglary statute
included an attached garage).

Had Wills' trial counsel moved for a
judgment of acquittal on the basis there
was insufficient evidence to support
a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage there were no persons
present in or upon the occupied
structure, it would have been overruled
by the court because the owner and his
family were present in the residence at
the time of the burglary.

Wills also claims his counsel was
ineffective for failing to object to
the jury instruction used by the district
court on the same ground; that the
living quarters were a separate and
independent occupied structure from the
attached garage. The instruction as
given stated:

The State must prove all of the following
elements of Burglary in the Second
Degree as to Count I:

1. On or about the 12th day of August,
2003, the defendant or someone he aided
and abetted broke into or entered the
residence at . . . .

2. The residence at . . . was an occupied
structure as defined in Instruction No. 29.

3. The defendant or the person he aided
and abetted did not have permission or
authority to break into the residence at ...

4. The defendant or the person he aided
and abetted did so with the specific
intent to commit a theft therein.

5. During the incident persons were present
in or upon the occupied structure.

If the State has proved all of the elements,
the defendant is guilty of Burglary in the
Second Degree. If the State has failed to prove
any of the elements, the defendant is not
guilty of Burglary in the Second Degree and
you will then consider the charge of
Attempted Burglary in the Second Degree
explained in Instruction No. 21.

(Emphasis added.)

Wills' claim is without merit. As we have
discussed, the residence is the one and
only "occupied structure" under the facts
of this case. Had Wills' trial counsel
made this objection to the instruction,
it would have been overruled.

Therefore, Wills' trial counsel is not
ineffective for failing to move
for a judgment of acquittal or objecting
to the instruction because there was no
legal basis for the motion or objection.
See State v. Hochmuth, 585 N.W.2d 234,
238 (Iowa 1998) (holding trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise an
issue that has no merit).

IV. Disposition.

We affirm the judgment of the district
court because Wills' trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise
meritless issues.

AFFIRMED.






Kent's stock deceptions/logical fallacies (7/28/2010)

F. Ad Hominem calling opponents
1. Drunks or drunk drivers
2. Druggies or on drugs
3. Mentally Ill often as result of drug use
G. Res Judicata
1. Already conceded to Kent's argument
2. Question already asked and answered.
H. Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence
1a. Missing Middle, False Dilemma, False Dichotomy, bifurcation
1b. Fallacy of Complex Question - loaded question with presupposition
2. Withholding proof saying it's already on the table
3. ""Check is in the mail"" as proof of something.
4. Proof held hostage awaiting opponents proof on something else
5. Claim that a lack of proof disproves something.
6. Claim that a lack of proof proves something.
7. Claim that asking for a LINK PROVES insult XYZ
J. strawman
1. False pretense that opponent made some idiotic argument
2. Lie claimed to be based on opponents standards
K. OUTRIGHT LIE ( doesn't fit other designations )
L. IDENTITY
1. The court records were faked as a prank. ( On 3 official sites? )
2. Anonymity - That's not my name at all!
3. Doppelganger defense - " That was some OTHER Kent B Wills."
4. Never gone to prison ( convict didn't go either! mental case? )

It's as if Kent is an automation that is WAY too simple.

http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html

Since a question is not an argument, simply asking a loaded question
is not a fallacious argument. Rather, loaded questions are typically
used to trick someone into implying something they did not intend. For
instance, salespeople learn to ask such loaded questions as: "Will
that be cash or charge?" This question gives only two alternatives,
thus presuming that the potential buyer has already decided to make a
purchase, which is similar to the Black-or-White Fallacy. If the
potential buyer answers the question directly, he may suddenly find
himself an actual buyer.

[Greegor]

Kent, you lie so much that you must be on some Goebbels
kick except he stuck to an apparent goal, purpose or point.
You lose track of that.

[Checkmate]

Warning! Always wear ANSI approved safety goggles when reading posts by
Checkmate!

Have you tried to drown any little girls lately, or aren't you allowed
anywhere near them?

--
Checkmate
KotAGoR XXXIV
Hammer of Thor, Feb. 2012
Copyright ￜ 2012
all rights reserved

"its usually the lesser intelligent person , that comments
on the more intelligent person's , lack of intelligents"

-Dave Keating, AKA "Squiggles" the assworm, AKA %, explaining
intelligence

[Greegor]

Kent Bradley Wills, DOB Jan 8, 1969 of Rogers, Arkansas

http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/63269/photos/PHOTO_14204311_63269_25461334_ap.jpg

AKA Kalderashi Kent the Kowboy from Krakow Poland

[Fred Hall]

On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 15:19:59 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote in
<989e9800-c726-44cb...@f37g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>:

>AKA

Why were you in the bathroom with a naked 7 year old girl?

[Fred Hall]

On Wed, 18 Apr 2012 04:49:46 -0500, Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
wrote in <qf3to7p2cu8ibfcm1...@4ax.com>:

>On Tue, 17 Apr 2012 20:51:07 -0500, Fred Hall <fkh...@databasix.com>
>wrote:

> He's never answered this question, though it's been asked a
>number of times.
> The mere thought of answering it causes him to lose control of
>his bowels. Possibly bladder as well.

That's how it is with award-winning Usenet cowards.

--
"These clowns are all Jokers!" - Rasta Khan

"I'm more of a Usenet force than you'll ever imagine in your wildest dreams." - Nellie Hall

KotAGoR XXXXI
COOSN-075-07-81342
Brainwashed Follower of Art Deco #1
Old Gringo's Poopy Lits #1
Nellies invalid AUK Sociopath lits #10
@'s Lits of cyberterrorists and cyber bullies #1
eMutT lits o' hate #4
Lits Slut#10
Usenet Ruiner #3
Top Asshole On The Net #2
Most Hated Usenetizen of all time #2.
Sweetness Seal Of Approval #2
Hammer of Thor - August 2005
Pierre Salinger HL&S - January 2012
Pierre Salinger HL&S - February 2012
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle,Trainer Rasta Khan March 2006

[Greegor]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.visitors/msg/7bb21a6718c8504c

Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:46:12 [...]
KBW 2003 > I was born in Krakow, Poland on
KBW 2003 > Jan. 8, 1969. I grew up there, and
KBW 2003 > in the mid 80's I came to the US.

http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/

Iowa Courts
Online Search
< Start A Case Search Here! > click

Iowa Courts Online Search
Search Selection

Under Trial Court < click on Case Search >

Wills Kent B
02401 ESPR015146 INA J WILLS ESTATE
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT ******
05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT
05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRES VS KENT
05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRES VS KENT
05771 STAN201670 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 STAN210929 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969

A list of case numbers will be presented.
Click on the SECOND Felony ending with 876.

Under the "Charges" tab:

Charges, Dispositions, Sentences
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
Citation Number:

[ These notes are still ONLINE and verifiable under CHARGES ]
[ Text compressed for presentation on usenet ]

Charges, Dispositions, Sentences
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
Citation Number:

Count 01
08/12/2003 Offense Date BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
12/17/2003 Adj.Date: GUILTY
01/16/2004 Sentence 10 Year(s) SUSPENDED PRISON
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION 2 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FT DSM FACILITY-MAX
BENEFITS
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE 150 Hour(s)
12/17/2003 Sentence: JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
Count 02
08/12/2003 Offense BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR VEHICLE
(AGMS)
12/17/2003 GUILTY
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON Duration: 2 Year(s) SUSPENDED PRISON
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION Duration: 2 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FT DSM FACILITY-MAX
BENEFITS
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE Duration: 150 Hour(s)
12/17/2003 Sentence: JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/06/09
Count 03
08/12/2003 USING JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE OFFENSE(FELC)709A.
6(2)
12/17/2003 GUILTY
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON Duration: 10 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON 10 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION 2 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FT DSM FACILITY-MAX
BENEFITS
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE 150 Hour(s)
12/17/2003 Sentence: JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09

http://fifthdcs.com/addresses.cfm?location=fort

Fifth Judicial District Department of Correctional Services

Fort Des Moines Community Corrections Complex
Main Phone Number: (515) 242-6900

Kent and the BOAT registration
1. Kent posted links to photos of his boat.
2. Kent made public claims about his boat registration.
3. Kent lied about boat registration some more.
4. Kent posted link to a youtube video of his boat.
5. posted Oct 6 2007 purchase weeks before (Sep purchase)
6. The boat registration was plainly visible. IA 6312 WW
(1989 Bluefin)
7. Iowa boat registration revealed it was registered
to Dale and Judy Caquelin 105 Southfield Webster City, Iowa

[Greegor]

Photo of Kent's shack at 1110 South F Street, Rogers, Arkansas
72756-5520
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&biw=1020&bih=602&q=1110+South+F+Street,+Rogers,+Arkansas+72756-5520
In the PHOTO (left side) look for the RED CHAIR on the front
"stoop"! LOL

http://cbk2.google.com/cbk?output=thumbnail&thumb=1&ll=36.322943,-94.107730&cbll=36.322971,-94.107481

[Greegor]

Hi Kent!

[Greegor]

Hi Kent!

[Greegor]

Gary Lee Burnore DOB 10/13/1957 mugshot 1997

http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/defectgb.jpg


GLB Probation Officer Report (3 pages)Oct 1997

http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc1_Page1.JPG
http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc1_Page2.JPG
http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc1_Page3.JPG

"Appearing before the Court for Violation of Probation
is 40-year-old Gary Burnore. The defendant was
convicted of violation of Sec. 647.6(a) PC (Annoying/
Molesting a Child Under the Age of 18). He is allegedly
in violation for failure to register, failure to make
payments, failure to participate in counseling, and
leaving the state of California without permission.
The defendant takes little responsibility for the
occurring offense, minimizing the part he played,
blaming others, and justifying his behavior as being
appropriate. Likewise, the defendant appears to
view himself as the victim, vocalizing his distress
that he has done everything 'right' and that the
Probation Department is preventing him from moving.
It is his belief that the probation officer is
'harassing' him.

Although the defendant verbalizes his compliance
with the terms and conditions of probation, it
seems clear that his actions speak louder than
his words, especially in the light of his recent
absconding from Santa Clara County. In secret,
the defendant moved to another state, fully
realizing he could not move from California
until Interstate Compact had finished their
investigation and the new state accepted his
case. The defendant's behavior can only be
characterized as manipulative and self-serving.
It appears the defendant does not believe he
needs to follow the rules, but rather that he
is a victim of the system and can, therefore,
do as he pleases.

The defendant's attitude, failure to comply,
and the point that he takes only minimal
responsibility for the occurring offense,
suggests that risk for potential victims
may be high."

J. Puccinelli, Probation Officer, Unit IV
Municipal Court of the State of California,
Santa Clara County, People of the State
of California v. Gary Burnore
Probation Office No. DMU044
Court No. C9618225 DA No. 961131078
Santa Clara Police Department Case No. 9615185

http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=0594483


SEVEN PAGE POLICE NARRATIVE

http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc2_Page1.JPG
http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc2_Page2.JPG
http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc2_Page3.JPG
http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc2_Page4.JPG
http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc2_Page5.JPG
http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc2_Page6.JPG
http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc2_Page7.JPG

Police Narrative Pages 1-7
http://bayimg.com/haNigAaBd
http://bayimg.com/hanIIaaBd
http://bayimg.com/HaNIlAabd
http://bayimg.com/hAnimaaBD
http://bayimg.com/IANIaaAbD
http://bayimg.com/iaNicaabd
http://bayimg.com/iAnidaabd