Renoir FAQ
hypa...@comcast.net
raven1
>I HATE NIGGES AND JEWS
Off your meds again, Kenny?
Syd
> I HATE NIGGES AND JEWS
Oh, hi, Kenny.
Got turned down again?
PDW
Darrell Stec
hypatiab7 must have really, really hit a raw nerve to get Kenny so riled
that even his meds aren't working.
--
Later,
Darrell
Don Martin
> raven1 inscribed forevermore utilizing silicon chips::
>
>
> >>I HATE NIGGES AND JEWS
>
> > Off your meds again, Kenny?
>
> >www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>
> hypatiab7 must have really, really hit a raw nerve to get Kenny so riled
> that even his meds aren't working.
Never mind his meds--his spell checker appears to have blown a fuse.
freedom
>On Oct 13, 9:25=A0am, <hypati...@comcast.net> wrote:
>> I HATE NIGGES AND JEWS
>
>Oh, hi, Kenny.
>Got turned down again?
>
>PDW
That's not the worst of it.
He got turned down by HIS HAND! It said "I don't have time to play with
ol' Stubby today....I have to get on this keyboard and make 200 David Moore=
posts by noon!"
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
criminals
"[I have] [n]ever had [any] standing in the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's=
Association or AN Y connection to them."
--Ken Pangborn in a usenet post on January 1, 2009, denying affiliation
with the TCDLA, to whom he provided bogus educational credentials. His lie=
is disproved here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060822021821/www.tcdla.com/secure/experts/inde=
x.shtml
"Some photo of some girl without even any documentation on THAT only proves=
that YOU are a PSYCHO! A really STUPID one at that!"
--Ken Pangborn, admitting to being a "stupid" "psycho" in message-ID
<jOp3l.292$Es4...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
"The FACT is that [my mail-order wife Barbara Sanciprian] and I were
introduced in the FORMAL Spanish tradition by mutual friends, and were
married first in Cuba after 2 year courtship."
--Ken Pangborn, admitting that he began cheating on his wife Peggy on
September 28, 2001, nearly two years before she separated from him
"I'm David Moore and I am insane!"
--Ken Pangborn posting to alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, attempting to claim
that his name is David Moore
"If you call the police, I'll knock out all of your teeth, I'll cripple
you. I may go to prison for it, but when I get out, I'll be able to walk,
but you will still be a cripple."
--Pangborn puppet Greg Hanson of alt.support.child-protective-services **,
in a verbal threat to his girlfriend
** - this conclusion was reached via applying Ken and Greg's logic
Keywords: false allegations,sexual abuse,marital rape, date rape, sexual
harassment,child abuse,domestic violence,rape allegations,false allegations=
of child abuse,false rape allegations,false abuse accusations,false
accusations,recovered memories,child sexual abuse,abuse child,sexual
assault,child molestation,reactive attachment disorder,penile
plethysmograph,polygraph,attorneys,divorce,visitation,pedophiles
More-keywords: KRP CONSULTING. False allegations of child abuse, false
abuse accusations, false domestic violence allegations help, false rape
allegations, abuse child, sexual abuse, child sexual abuse, false
allegations, false accusations, recovered memories, sexual assault, child
molestation, child sexual abuse, reactive attachment disorder, penile
plethysmograph, polygraph, trial consulting, jury consulting, jury
selection, jury voire dire, wrongful allegations, false child sexual abuse
allegations. Wrongful child sexual abuse allegations. Domestic Violence.
Rape. Marital rape. Date Rape. Confidence Rape.
Yet-more-keywords: ken pangborn,kenneth pangborn,barbara pangborn,barbara
sanciprian,palm harbor,tampa,attorneys,florida lawyers,florida
attorneys,tampa lawyers,tampa attorneys,trial consultant,trial
consulting,dui,domestic violence,vawa,abuse,3648 cockatoo,new port
richey,ernesto sanciprian,ernesto miguel blanco sanciprian,blanco
sanciprian,bryce carter,holguin,julio aguilar,yudith bacallao,raimundo
cabrera,ana hernandez chi,lixandro cordero,leandis diaz,al faisbuker,wendy
gil,armando capo ramos,george riveron,reinaldo rodriguez,lexis ross,liana
yisell alvarez silveira,madelyn tamayo,manuel toledo,thais valdes
Extra-keywords: Julito Sainz,craig clawson,lia yisell
Robibnikoff
"Darrell Stec" <dar...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
news:7jjiepF...@mid.individual.net...
I'm still trying to figure out why he forged me. Probably because I exist
<shugs>
>
--
Robyn
Resident Witchypoo
BAAWA
#1557
Syd
> "Darrell Stec" <dars...@neo.rr.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7jjiepF...@mid.individual.net...
>
> > raven1 inscribed forevermore utilizing silicon chips::
>
>
> >>>I HATE NIGGES AND JEWS
>
> >> Off your meds again, Kenny?
>
> >>www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>
> > hypatiab7 must have really, really hit a raw nerve to get Kenny so riled
> > that even his meds aren't working.
>
> I'm still trying to figure out why he forged me. Probably because I exist
> <shugs>
>
>
And your a woman.
He hates those, don't you know.
PDW
lostintranslation
Hmm, I'm a woman too but Ken hasn't attacked me and hasn't shown
hatred towards me here or on ascps. Huh? Odd, that.
womanGoddess
Oh that's his usual bad spelling. He makes some whoppers of
misspellings when he gets in one of his shit fits. He usually starts
posting his rants after downing some booze.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
Know your scum--- http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
womanGoddess
No kidding! I'm female and Kennie hates me, more so when I revealed
his claims about his AF " service" weren't credible, as my father
served in the Air Force. he's called me all sorts of names and he
finally called me " bitch" about two weeks agi.
Greegor
If you actually had a BOYFRIEND he
could be charged for bestiality.
You can't get a date with either gender.
You're a misfit living in your Mommy and Daddy's house.
Moe > and Kennie hates me, more so when I revealed
Moe > his claims about his AF " service" weren't credible,
Based on your TRUE CRIME criminology degree, no doubt.
Moe > as my father served in the Air Force.
You mean Frank McAllister, right?
Moe > he's called me all sorts of names and he
Moe > finally called me " bitch" about two weeks ago.
When did Glen Frohman call you bitch?
You stalked and harassed Glen for TEN YEARS,
including you and others using anony remailers.
I have asked you for proof that Glen was convicted.
You posted a LINK which named NO DEFENDANTS.
If LIT asks for the proof of Glen's conviction,
will you play cat and mouse for weeks
insisting it was asked and answered long ago?
Or will you just admit that you lied?
And how MANY people have you stalked and
harassed on the internet, Maureen?
I know of a couple but I'm still giving you
a chance to speak up for yourself.
Did you think this information is hard to find, Maureen?
Tell me more about this marriage license!
hypa...@comcast.net
Greegor is Kenny. He's used this nym before.
Greegor
G > If you actually had a BOYFRIEND he
G > could be charged for bestiality.
G > You can't get a date with either gender.
G > You're a misfit living in your Mommy and Daddy's house.
Moe > and Kennie hates me, more so when I revealed
Moe > his claims about his AF " service" weren't credible,
G > Based on your TRUE CRIME criminology degree, no doubt.
Moe > as my father served in the Air Force.
G > You mean Frank McAllister, right?
Moe > he's called me all sorts of names and he
Moe > finally called me " bitch" about two weeks ago.
G > When did Glen Frohman call you bitch?
G > You stalked and harassed Glen for TEN YEARS,
G > including you and others using anony remailers.
G > I have asked you for proof that Glen was convicted.
G > You posted a LINK which named NO DEFENDANTS.
G > If LIT asks for the proof of Glen's conviction,
G > will you play cat and mouse for weeks
G > insisting it was asked and answered long ago?
G > Or will you just admit that you lied?
G > And how MANY people have you stalked and
G > harassed on the internet, Maureen?
G > I know of a couple but I'm still giving you
G > a chance to speak up for yourself.
G > Did you think this information is hard to find, Maureen?
G > Tell me more about this marriage license!
DDM > Greegor is Kenny. He's used this nym before.
David Daniel Moore DOB 9/26/70
If the STREET VIEW button doesn't show up, click
on the address in bold blue on the left, then
click on STREET VIEW to see Davey's bunker!
Parcel details
http://198.173.15.21/ccao/ParcelDetails.asp?PIN=30182330330000
Map
http://198.173.15.21/ccao/MapIndex.asp?action=parcel&PIN=30182330330000
Photo
http://198.173.15.21/AssessorPics/GeoSpan/30182330330000.jpg
http://www.cookcountyassessor.com/data/searchflat/ParcelImage.asp?pin=30182330330000
http://www.whitepages.com/search/ReverseAddress?street=850+buffalo+ave&where=Calumet+City%2C+IL
http://198.173.15.21/ccao/ParcelDetails.asp?PIN=30182330330000
Cook County Assessor's Office: Property Search Details
Property Index Number: 30-18-233-033-0000
View Property Picture
View Property Map
Address : 850 Buffalo Ave
City : Calumet City
Township : Thornton
Neighborhood : 61
Taxcode : 37030
Assessed Valuation
2008
First Pass Assessment 2007
Board of Review Certified
Land Assessed Value 3,025
2,521
Building Assessed Value 16,434
14,957
Total Assessed Value 19,459
17,478
Estimated Market Value 121,619
109,238
Property Characteristics
Class: 2-11
Description : Two to Six Apartments, Over 62 Years
Residence Type Two Story
Use Multi Family
Apartments Two
Exterior Construction Masonry
Full Baths 2
Half Baths 0
Basement1 Partial and Rec Room
Attic None
Central Air No
Number of Fireplaces 1
Garage Size/Type2 2.5 car detached
Building Square Footage: 1,752
Land Square Footage 6,304
Assessment Pass First Pass
Age: 27
Land Square Footage: 6,304
1 Excluded from Building Square footage, except apartment
2 Excluded from Building Square footage
Sunday, June 10, 2007
ARRESTS
Monday through Friday [ June 4 to June 8 ]
Battery David Moore, 36, Calumet City
David Daniel Moore court records: David D. Moore
DOB 9/26/70 850 Buffalo Avenue, Calumet City, IL
case 64D 060706FD 4989 Monday June 4th 2007
Class D Felony, Assault on somebody under 14 years old
pretrial February 8th 8:30 hearing on March 12th 1PM
The North Porter County complex is in Portage, Indiana
219 759 8219 no e-records, won't fax or e-mail records
paid $2000 bond, Attorney Robert Harper Portage, Indiana
does not have a probation officer pre-trial
--------------------------------------
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/51dcda5be649629b
On Jan 30, 4:08 am, freedom <aboutKRP...> wrote:
G > Dave tried to say this was me.
DDM > No, I didn't. <snip>
--------------------------------------
http://www.courts.state.pa.us/OpPosting/Superior/out/a24025_04.pdf
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/WebDocketSheets/OtherCriteria.aspx?mode=cp
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us
Public Calendar schedule
E-Services (button)
Public Web Docket Sheets (dropdown menu)
Court of Common Pleas (dropdown button CLICK)
Common Pleas Docket sheet page
Search type: CP/MP Docket Number
Docket number (fill in these blanks) CP-48-CR-0002394-2002
CLICK the search button.
further down the page this appears:
CP-48-CR-0002394-2002 Comm. v. Hanson, Gregory 8/1/2002 12:00:00 AM
Northampton Hanson, Gregory Christian Closed H5648506 10/17/1975
If you look closely at the left end of that there is a graphic box.
Put your mouse over it and a drop down menu appears offering
Docket Sheet or
Court Summary
Select Docket Sheet
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/docketsheets/CPReport.aspx?matterID=61271779
COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF NORTHAMPTON COUNTY
DOCKET
Docket Number: CP-48-CR-0002394-2002
Court Case
CRIMINAL DOCKET
Page 1 of 17
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
v.
Gregory Christian Hanson
CASE INFORMATION
Judge Assigned: Moran, William F. Date Filed: 08/01/2002 Initiation
Date: 08/01/2002
OTN: H5648506 Lower Court Docket No: CR-0000212-02
Initial Issuing Authority: Ralph W Litzenberger Final Issuing
Authority: Ralph W Litzenberger
Arresting Agency: Forks Twp Police Dept Arresting Officer: Affiant
Case Local Number Type(s) Case Local Number(s)
Legacy Docket Number C-48-CR-2002-2394
[ Snipped for brevity. ]
http://ujsportal.pacourts.us/docketsheets/CourtSummaryReport.aspx?matterID=61271779
Northampton County Court of Common Pleas
Court Summary
Hanson, Gregory Christian
Frackville, PA 179312699
Aliases:
Hanson, Gregory
Hanson, Gregory C.
DOB:10/17/1975
Race:Caucasian
Hair:
Eyes:
Sex:Male
Closed
Northampton
CP-48-CR-0001279-1999
Arrest Dt: 05/03/1999
[ Snipped for brevity. ]
Keywords:
850 Buffalo Avenue, Calumet City, Illinois 60409,
INTERNET STALKER CON ARTIST David Daniel Moore,
pathological liar David Daniel Moore,
internet psychopath David Daniel Moore,
hate site, sociopath stalker,pervert,creep
pathological liar David Daniel Moore
abusive real estate agents,deception,hacker,
sexual blackmail David Daniel Moore coward,
tara moreland, Linda Boss, janet m moore,
dawn moore, tara moreland, alias dustin calloway,
alias david miller, alias david boss,
alias jeff johnson, criminal, computer hacker,
criminal hacker, internet stalkers, stalker,
internet harassment, usenet threats
usenet forgery David Daniel Moore, forger,
new zealand hate site, internet libel
website of lies, chicagoland pansies
malicious use of employers computers,
formerly of Sara Lee Corporation, child abuser,
sara lee corporation, never employ this temp,
internet psychopaths, internet addiction,
internet stalking, woman hater, blackmailer,
sexual harassment, stalker, sexual blackmail,
David Daniel Moore bbs blackmail,usmc 29 palms,
discharge for the good of the service,
linda boss, formerly of Sara Lee Corporation,
short term contract programmer lotus,
David Moore lives in his mommy's basement,
850 Buffalo Avenue, Calumet City, Illinois 60409,
temp worker, lotus consultant, temp worker,
short term contracts,IP address trickery,
casino software consultant moral terpitude,
computer identity forgery, mommys basement,
anonymous remailer stalkers, office disruption,
anonymous remailer abusers, coalition forces,
David Daniel Moore basement dweller,
off shore website avid Daniel Moore,
new zealand, malaysia website,
David Daniel Moore employer computer abuse,
obsessive compulsive disorder
womanGoddess
wrote:
No, they are two different assholes. Greegor is Kennie's lackey.
That's why he parrots what Kennie tells him and " sounds" so much like
Kennie.
Kennie lives in Florida. Greegor AKA Greg Hanson lives in Iowa.
Greg Hanson
907 Moose Dr NW
Cedar Rapids, IA 52405
(319) 390-4696
womanGoddess
Also ironically gaggie accuses me of stalking while himself shows
stalking behavior on numerous people, including me. Fortunately he
sucks at it.
I can see the conclusion that Gaggie is Kennie. They both make
accusations they never bother to back up. They both make " challenges"
they never bother to follow through on. And they are both disruptive
losers.
What gaggie is is Kennie's little tagalong, doing what Kennie orders
him to do. When Kennie was gone for a few days while he changed his
Verizon ISP to Road Runner, Greg was left flapping and weakly trying
to revive old posts. Now that Kennie is back, all of a sudden Gaggie
has regained his mental abilities. Such a miraculous recovery would
be a medical miracle if greggie was this "independent"poster he
pretends to be. It's pretty obvious that Greg does what Kennie emails
him to post.
We're not talking a pair of geniuses here. Both use tactics to
distract away from the subject at hand and they both are too dumb to
keep their actual intent concealed. Kennie has revealed he's trying a
Pavlov's dog route to those he deliberately harasess. And to greg this
is all a game he plays as cyberstalker in pathetic attempts to
intimidate people.
Both seem to be affected by alcohol or drug abuse. Both are liars,
sucking their lives away without bothering to actually go beyond their
own seflishness. Kennie recently went on a shit fit about how eager he
was to lure certain people to try to steal his " precious" collection
in his garage while Kennie strokes his gun and claims to be a
sharpshooter.
Kennie even claimed that a Santeria high priest put a curse on
Freedom//Moore and Kennie's description of what he thought the "
curse" would entail was very homoerotic in nature. As Kennie is a
misogynist and has made numerous posts referring to presumably males
who post by genitalia and homosexual -oriented references, there is
some validity to the idea that Kenneth Pangborn is in fact a
homosexual.
Greg admits he was caught in the bathroom with his girlfriend's naked
seven year old daughter. He has two excuses. One that he was washing
the shampoo out of her hair ( in a method that was far from gentle,
more like abusive). Another is that he was "washing the pee" off of
her. With his bare hand. CPS took the girl away from the obviously
abusive home. Greg lives with his girlfriend and his record with his
ex-wife is not that of a gentleman.
Kennie supposedly has four daughters and was married four times. One
daughter, supposedly a Olympic contender for horse riding, later
became a porn actress. And sexually abused children often go into
prostitution or other " adult entertainment" fields. Kennie's
statements about rape and domestic abuse are highly
misogynistic.Kennie makes grandiose claims about himself but when
shown his claims about himself are lies, he goes into what I call shit
fits. You in the atheism newsgroup know about his harassments and
attacks.
These two feed on the responses they get by attacking people.
Greegor
Path: g2news1.google.com!postnews.google.com!
j4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: womanGoddess <fvrn...@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups: alt.atheism,alt.support.child-protective-services
Subject: Re: Moe's stalking
Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 12:43:30 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 74
Message-ID: <5fd40bc5-b4c4-4eb0-8a20-
d89cc9...@j4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>
References:
<d96f1ab09b8643cc...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net>
<8i29d55euc0gvqflh...@4ax.com>
<7jjiepF...@mid.individual.net>
<7jjl4aF...@mid.individual.net>
<256fcc18-9ee5-4c8d...@p35g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
<cddb4c4a-d212-4fc8...@w19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>
<1ecc79a6-41fd-4e27...@l2g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
<b4c5d4ea-81e7-4000...@g19g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 208.54.219.184
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1255549411 3670 127.0.0.1 (14 Oct 2009
19:43:31 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: Wed, 14 Oct 2009 19:43:31 +0000 (UTC)
Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
Injection-Info: j4g2000yqa.googlegroups.com; posting-
host=208.54.219.184;
posting-account=zW8kxwgAAABrCuDYTbWRR0mwD854eYAP
User-Agent: G2/1.0
X-HTTP-UserAgent: Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-GB; rv:
1.9.0.7)
Gecko/2009021910 Firefox/3.0.7,gzip(gfe),gzip(gfe)
On Oct 14, 1:15=A0am, "hypati...@comcast.net" <hypati...@comcast.net>
wrote:
> On Oct 14, 1:16=A0am, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > Moe > No kidding! =A0I'm female
Greg Hanson
[ Home Address and Phone Number ]
freedom
>Moe, you're EVIL!
Gee, I'm sure those three words hurt her beyond measure.
Has Ken taken the day off from writing your posts for you?
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
criminals
"[I have] [n]ever had [any] standing in the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's
Association or AN Y connection to them."
--Ken Pangborn in a usenet post on January 1, 2009, denying affiliation
with the TCDLA, to whom he provided bogus educational credentials. His lie
is disproved here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060822021821/www.tcdla.com/secure/experts/inde
x.shtml
"Some photo of some girl without even any documentation on THAT only proves
that YOU are a PSYCHO! A really STUPID one at that!"
--Ken Pangborn, admitting to being a "stupid" "psycho" in message-ID
<jOp3l.292$Es4...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
"The FACT is that [my mail-order wife Barbara Sanciprian] and I were
introduced in the FORMAL Spanish tradition by mutual friends, and were
married first in Cuba after 2 year courtship."
--Ken Pangborn, admitting that he began cheating on his wife Peggy on
September 28, 2001, nearly two years before she separated from him
"I'm David Moore and I am insane!"
--Ken Pangborn posting to alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, attempting to claim
that his name is David Moore
"If you call the police, I'll knock out all of your teeth, I'll cripple
you. I may go to prison for it, but when I get out, I'll be able to walk,
but you will still be a cripple."
--Pangborn puppet Greg Hanson of alt.support.child-protective-services **,
in a verbal threat to his girlfriend
** - this conclusion was reached via applying Ken and Greg's logic
Keywords: false allegations,sexual abuse,marital rape, date rape, sexual
harassment,child abuse,domestic violence,rape allegations,false allegations
krp
"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
news:db364ea7860e0202...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
> The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
> criminals
NOT TRUE!
womanGoddess
wrote:
> On Thu, 15 Oct 2009, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Moe, you're EVIL!
>
> Gee, I'm sure those three words hurt her beyond measure.
Coming as it is from a guy who abused two women in his life so much
both became mentally ill and who abused a seven year old girl,
including the two bathroom incidents he admits to ( and spins), him
calling me evil is laughable.
" Glass jaw" gaggie has a very twisted idea of good and evil.
>
> Has Ken taken the day off from writing your posts for you?
Probably. Gaggie claims he knows my physical address but hasn't
posted it. Usual garbage from him. What HE does is OC NOT " evil".
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
Know your scum--- http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>
> http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
> The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
> criminals
>
> "[I have] [n]ever had [any] standing in the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's
> Association or AN Y connection to them."
> --Ken Pangborn in a usenet post on January 1, 2009, denying affiliation
> with the TCDLA, to whom he provided bogus educational credentials. His lie
> is disproved here:http://web.archive.org/web/20060822021821/www.tcdla.com/secure/expert...
> x.shtml
>
> "Some photo of some girl without even any documentation on THAT only proves
> that YOU are a PSYCHO! A really STUPID one at that!"
> --Ken Pangborn, admitting to being a "stupid" "psycho" in message-ID
> <jOp3l.292$Es4....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
Greegor
Greegor
idea you meant the Gorgon.
SeanSpade
years in federal prison for some Dave Matthews tapes or something.
I would know, because my name is Sean Frohman. I know everything about
him.
womanGoddess
Actually it was six months, not two years..
I doubt your claims of knowing him. Feel free to email me.
Greegor
Got a LINK to any of his public criminal records?
Or even a news story naming him and stating conviction?
Moe tried to pass off a news story as proof
and it didn't name any of the perpetrators.
No offense but this is an environment rich with
forgery, impersonation and attempted frame ups.
If you're a relative of Frohman's then why would
you rat your own relative for something where
he paid his (harsh) debt to society?
Particularly where the discussion was about how Maureen ran
a CAMPAIGN of stalking and harassment of Glen for a DECADE
and repeatedly dodges requests for online verifiable proof that
he was actually even convicted.
The fact that Moe would do that to somebody
without even having the actual proof online
in some form that could be verified is important.
Moe and her ""associates"" have harassed
a number of people like that over the years.
Ironically, her main ally online is a two time
thieving Felon and famous Garage Burglary Felon
and she has argued against THOSE facts
even though they come from three different
OFFICIAL state web sites and can be
independently verified easily online.
So it's PARTICULARLY funny that she
denies her felon buddy is one, when proof
is plentiful online, yet she swears that
Glen went to prison as a source of pride
for her, but has only a news article that
fails to name the convicted.
Got a LINK?
panam...@hotmail.com
snip crap
Dude, if you're going to be stupid enough to publicly suck Kenny's
dick in alt.atheism, you should provide some evidence for his position
*before* you start going off on tangents about the other people who
ridicule his wormy fat ass.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015/Member, Knights of BAAWA!
Greegor
PF > Dude, if you're going to be stupid enough to publicly suck
Kenny's
PF > dick in alt.atheism, you should provide some evidence for his
position
PF > *before* you start going off on tangents about the other people
who
PF > ridicule his wormy fat ass.
What the heck does this have to do with the
supposed Frohman relative who posted?
panam...@hotmail.com
Not much, but I just wanted everyone to know that since you're dumb
enough to support Pangborn, nothing you post on *any* topic is worthy
of discussion.
-Panama Floyd, Atlanta.
aa#2015, Member Knights of BAAWA!
"..the prayer cloth of one aeon is the doormat of the next."
-Mark Twain
Religious societies are *less* moral than secular ones:
http://moses.creighton.edu/JRS/2005/2005-11.html
darth
know the information that would guarantee they are. 2nd of all they
wouldnt know his birthday or mothers name or where he was born.
i did not do 2 yrs in prison much less 6 months. all the info you
read
about me on any newsgroup is false. you dont have my name correct
either. moe aka maureen mcallister is a liar. she was my stalker
from aug 98 til late 04 but i thought she finally went away. i
figured
she had found a life. i guess not. nothing u read written by her is
accurate or true. fact is.. she bought a tape i was selling on ebay
in june 98. she bid it up to $62 and won. she claimed it said the
quality of the tape was excellent. it didnt say that. it was however
very good quality but was also so rare that any copy in any quality
was rare enough that anyone who really needed that crap should
have been happy with it. 61 days after she received the vhs tape
she complained. back then ebay allowed negative comments on
feedback up til the end of the 2nd month. by the time i saw her
comment i was unable to post my response. she specifically waited
that full 61 days to post her feedback. i had a no return policy at
the time on all ebay sales. the tape was quantum leap bloopers.
which was really a collection of odd outtakes and unused footage
and some footage from the shows edited to make music videos of
a sort. still a highly desired collectors item. who on earth would
spend $60 or more on a f'n video tape??? so she expected a
refund so she could copy the tape and return it. she in fact insisted
on not returning the item til after she got her refund. im not
stupid.
and with such an item it lends itself to being copied regardless of
her claims that she wouldnt do this. its already obvious that she
is an obsessed fan so who is to say that she wouldnt lower herself
to such levels??
so anyway.. she spent the next few years harassing and stalking
me online. following me for hours upon hours each and every
day from chat rom to chat room posting messages on every message
board she could find .. in all the groups she could join. etc.
i did in fact leave aol for a year.. but no i cant prove that i wasnt
in jail.. i wasnt.. but thats not the point. i did take a break
thinking
that after a year she would go away.. she did in fact for a few
months when i came back but then after a few more months she
finally went away. thats when i figured she found a life. maybe
found a man who was so f'n desperate that he wanted even her
til he found out what he hooked up with.. who knows?
anyway.... no i was never busted.. there are people who were able
to troll the newsgroups and post messages that appeared to come
from me.. but didnt. these messages started in sept 98 and
continued til at least june 02. thats when i took my break for
a few months. i kinda hung out til march 03 then stayed off aol
and the net for 13 months. again i never went to jail or prison
at all ever. i was never convicted of any crime even remotely
similar to this and i will not respond further to this thread. i was
told about this series of messages today so i am responding now.
i do collect music. i have over 75000 cds that i downloaded from
online and well over 100,000 concerts as well. i do not and
have never sold a single cd in my life. i did collect rare videos
and audios too for a while and i did trade and vine and weed
these for many years. if i had been busted i wouldnt have the
sort of collection i do. certainly i wouldnt be allowed to be on
line or collect music the way i do. i have been back on line
and collecting since april 04. im not on probation or parole
or anything similar to that. i have never been on any of these
things. i can be contacted via email too but i dont use my
google mail account. so dont bother writing to me there.
nearly 100% of the people who make claims about me to
the negative have never dealt with me on any level. all they
are doing is repeating things they heard. maureen / moe spent
1000s of hours doing nothing but trying to list me on bad
trader sites.. idiots who didnt care if it was true what they
were reading.. figured that its better safe to be sorry but didnt
consider that rumors lies and speculation they are perpetuating
might be more damaging than protective. i didnt care either
way altho yes it did affect my collecting which is all that
mattered at the time. i do not trade music since i dont have
to with the various means and methods out there of obtaining
music. i dont participate in vines or weeds either. i dont
have to. i dont care if people wish to think or believe the
horrible and ridiculous lies they have read about me regardless
where they are posted. anyone can say anything they wish.
it doesnt make it true. nor does it matter since i am not
worried about anyone trusting me or dealing with me since
i do not sell or trade anything with anyone. theres nothing
i need or want that i cant get on my own.
no one on this group or any other for that matter should care
what someone who has no clue about me cept that she
once bought a blooper tape from me via ebay and later
decided she wasnt happy...has to say about me. it doesnt
matter at all whatsoever.
my religion or beliefs there of.. are no ones business nor
should anyone care what they are.
if anyone wishes to contact me.. u can at rarecdrcolectr
at aol dot com. thats rarecdr...@aol.com
if it is edited / censored from this posting just email me
at america online with that screename. it will work.
thanks for reading..
ps... if you do contact me.. and its a rude or stupid
email i will ignore it. i will not respond. i dont have
the time nor ambition to make sure that everyone out
there believes me or knows all the facts. but since
i found this thread here i figured i would at least respond
to the comments..
oh.. and thank you very much to greegor whoever you are.
even tho you dont know me.. it is clear you use your head.
peace
Greegor
Glen, Did you know that Moe has stalked several
other people as well as yourself in the past?
Totally disconnected from each other, apparently.
And while she has been falsely asserting
that you were convicted, she was a complete
stooge for a GENUINE garage burglar?
( 2 time felon + Misd for using a kid to do it.)
The problem for that idiot is that too much
of the track record is actually ON state
web sites. Moe and him tried to argue that
the three different state web sites were
altered to slam him by a hacker or insider
as a JOKE. They argued the records were
fake. They tried to insist that only a SCAN
of the actual documents would be real proof.
(At which point you KNOW they would
pretend the scans were photoshopped.)
Isn't it ironic that Moe justified that whole
long campaign of stalking and harassment
based on HER OWN LIE about your conviction?
While she was actually denying blatant
proof that her buddy genuinely IS a two
time convicted THIEF and Garage Burglar?
On top of that, she has been defending
ANOTHER idiot who harasses, stalks and plays
games with anonymous remailers, including
pretending to be several different people
in discussions, forgeries of others trying
to frame them for horrific crimes, he made
firearms threats, ""solicitations"" for violent
rape of my SO, and tried to embarass
others for things they never actually said.
Let's just say that Dave is not as ""Anonymous""
as he thinks he is, online or with authorities.
Back when Moe was harassing you did she
have such an array of criminal associates?
If it's any consolation, Glen, she must have
nightmares about you because she actually
thought we had been in contact! LOL
She fell in with a whole hyena pack of cyber bullies
and they've been stalking and harassing for YEARS
but the second they are ID'd they accuse their
targets of being stalkers!
I haven't even posted Maureen Elaine McAllister's
address or phone number but she has posted
what she THOUGHT was my home address
several times. I still haven't posted hers.
Thanks for stopping by!
Greg
> at aol dot com. thats rarecdrcole...@aol.com
womanGoddess
Actually the person claimed to have the same name as Frohman, not as
an actual relative of the Ebay thief.
For all you know gaggie, _I_ set this up to bait you in your pathetic
attempt at cyberstalking.
But hey, feel free to email this person.
Just don't blame me if you actually contact Frohman and get what you
deserve.
womanGoddess
> since the person claiming they are my relative is lying.. they wouldnt
> know the information that would guarantee they are.
Your actor brother would know Glen.
> 2nd of all they
> wouldnt know his birthday or mothers name or where he was born.
> i did not do 2 yrs in prison much less 6 months.
Actually you did do six months plus a $42,000 fine.
> all the info you
> read
> about me on any newsgroup is false.
(( rolls eyes)) Oh boy , here we go again with one of your standard
lies....
BTW Glen, how DID your meeting with a certain rock musician go when
you grabbed one of his master tapes and tried your extortion attempt?
And do tell how someone could possibly steal $20 worth of your
cardboard boxes.
> you dont have my name correct
> either. moe aka maureen mcallister is a liar.
Projection noted.
> she was my stalker
> from aug 98 til late 04 but i thought she finally went away. i
> figured
> she had found a life. i guess not.
You searched for this with your mane Glen, Usual for you and your
massive ego.
How's your diabetes nowadays?
How did that test on your left boob come out?
> nothing u read written by her is
> accurate or true. fact is.. she bought a tape i was selling on ebay
> in june 98. she bid it up to $62 and won. she claimed it said the
> quality of the tape was excellent.
I saved a copy of your Ebay listing Glen. You misrepresented the
quality. Worse still, you copied it on a worn tape, which I later
found out is usual for you.
You are banned from a number of list groups precisely for your
spamming and abuse of others.
> it didnt say that. it was however
> very good quality but was also so rare that any copy in any quality
> was rare enough that anyone who really needed that crap should
> have been happy with it.
Bullshit and you know it. I FOUND a better, more COMPLETE copy of
Quantum Leap bloopers from another person while YOUR crappy copy was
so bad the video was barely there.
I caught you later trying to pass off your pirated coying of the Dark
Shadows blooper tape as something MPI never released. I also caught
you bragging in a chat room how many pirated copies of "Song of the
South" you made and sold, which to be honest was dumb of you to do, as
you found out when Disney folks emailed you about it.
> 61 days after she received the vhs tape
> she complained. back then ebay allowed negative comments on
> feedback up til the end of the 2nd month. by the time i saw her
> comment i was unable to post my response. she specifically waited
> that full 61 days to post her feedback.
Actually you are once again being dishonest here. I told you time and
time again Iw as going to chuck your passing off shit as good for a
bad lesson learned until I found out in an AOL chat room what you
were trying to pust a mentally ill woman to kill herself. Then I found
out from others how much of a shit you were online.
BTW considering how many people you pissed off and used, I had a
number of your aquantances find me and emailed me to fill me in on a
few details about you.
> i had a no return policy at
> the time on all ebay sales. the tape was quantum leap bloopers.
> which was really a collection of odd outtakes and unused footage
> and some footage from the shows edited to make music videos of
> a sort. still a highly desired collectors item.
Not the piece of shit you sold me.
BTW do tell these folks what happened to your collection of video
tapes?
(( hint, hint, he can't get them back from the feds as they rightly
destroyed all of them, like they do to people who commit video piracy
and sell bootlegs.))
(( CRUNCH, CRUNCH!!))
> who on earth would
> spend $60 or more on a f'n video tape??? so she expected a
> refund so she could copy the tape and return it.
There was nothing ON the tape worth " copying" to DOn;t accuse me of
what YOU usually do Glennie boy.
>she in fact insisted
> on not returning the item til after she got her refund.
Actually I didn;t say that. Surely you have proof to back up your
claim...
Wait, you don't....
> im not
> stupid.
Actually you are Glen, or you wouldn't have gotten caught by the
feds.
Gotten anyone now to file for you an SSI disability claim about you
supposedly being retarded-- AGAIN? Or can you pull that con anymore
now that you don't have some poor woman to hide behind as your patsy?
What was that " menancing" call you got last August, anyway?
> and with such an item it lends itself to being copied regardless of
> her claims that she wouldnt do this. its already obvious that she
> is an obsessed fan so who is to say that she wouldnt lower herself
> to such levels??
Like you've done?
> so anyway.. she spent the next few years harassing and stalking
> me online. following me for hours upon hours each and every
> day from chat rom to chat room posting messages on every message
> board she could find .. in all the groups she could join. etc.
> i did in fact leave aol for a year.. but no i cant prove that i wasnt
> in jail.. i wasnt..
(( derisive snort)) You are like Greg and Kennie in that you can't
live WITHOUT being online in some fashion.
Hell Glen, I frigging POSTED once your damn convict number when you
were incarcerated at the Brooklyn MDC.
You spent six months in prison then you had probation where one of
the conditions of your probation was no computer usage.
> but thats not the point. i did take a break
> thinking
> that after a year she would go away.. she did in fact for a few
> months when i came back but then after a few more months she
> finally went away.
I "went away" because my goal succeeded in getting you arrested and
serve some prison time.
Shall I detail here some of the crap you did on AOL chat rooms alone
that make what Greg and Kennie do look pale by comparison Glen? How
about how you threatened Lisa, your former patsy?
> thats when i figured she found a life. maybe
> found a man who was so f'n desperate that he wanted even her
> til he found out what he hooked up with.. who knows?
BTW I found a few of your profiles, speaking of desperate...
How's your looking for big lactating tis coming along?
> anyway.... no i was never busted.
Uh huh, and you and Ms. Thorton got your names in the paper for
what? Philanthropy?
>. there are people who were able
> to troll the newsgroups and post messages that appeared to come
> from me.. but didnt.
(( derisive snort)) Who would need to as you were so damn vocal enough
to post your rantings and ravings like the idiot you are? Why fake a
post from you when you yourself did do much damage to yourself on
your own?
BTW if you wish to continue this, I can crosspost it to your beloved
buddies at the tape trader newsgroups. Surely a few there can testify
about you (( grinning))
> these messages started in sept 98 and
> continued til at least june 02. thats when i took my break for
> a few months.
Because you were in prison.
>i kinda hung out til march 03 then stayed off aol
> and the net for 13 months. again i never went to jail or prison
> at all ever.
Funny I showed your prison number in one of my posts at the time after
you came back and tried to deny everything.
> i was never convicted of any crime even remotely
> similar to this and i will not respond further to this thread. i was
> told about this series of messages today so i am responding now.
Oh, I'd LOVE to see you stick to that! You can't keep yourself from
responding.
>
> i do collect music. i have over 75000 cds that i downloaded from
> online and well over 100,000 concerts as well.
Hmn, looks like the feds might once again be interested in you....
> i do not and
> have never sold a single cd in my life. i did collect rare videos
> and audios too for a while and i did trade and vine and weed
> these for many years. if i had been busted i wouldnt have the
> sort of collection i do. certainly i wouldnt be allowed to be on
> line or collect music the way i do.
Actually you DIDN'T for about a year. You do NOW because the probation
expired.
> i have been back on line
> and collecting since april 04. im not on probation or parole
> or anything similar to that. i have never been on any of these
> things. i can be contacted via email too but i dont use my
> google mail account. so dont bother writing to me there.
>
> nearly 100% of the people who make claims about me to
> the negative have never dealt with me on any level. all they
> are doing is repeating things they heard. maureen / moe spent
> 1000s of hours doing nothing but trying to list me on bad
> trader sites.. idiots who didnt care if it was true what they
> were reading.. figured that its better safe to be sorry but didnt
> consider that rumors lies and speculation they are perpetuating
> might be more damaging than protective. i didnt care either
> way altho yes it did affect my collecting which is all that
> mattered at the time. i do not trade music since i dont have
> to with the various means and methods out there of obtaining
> music. i dont participate in vines or weeds either. i dont
> have to. i dont care if people wish to think or believe the
> horrible and ridiculous lies they have read about me regardless
> where they are posted. anyone can say anything they wish.
> it doesnt make it true. nor does it matter since i am not
> worried about anyone trusting me or dealing with me since
> i do not sell or trade anything with anyone. theres nothing
> i need or want that i cant get on my own.
Meanwhile at least one list of the videos you did have for "
trade" was on one of the web pages you changed often. You got caught
SELLING videos Glen.
>
> no one on this group or any other for that matter should care
> what someone who has no clue about me cept that she
> once bought a blooper tape from me via ebay and later
> decided she wasnt happy...has to say about me. it doesnt
> matter at all whatsoever.
> my religion or beliefs there of..
Who said anything about your religion or lack thereof Glen?
Tell me what DID you do to your infant son when you were caught by
your wife and grandmother so you ran out of the house and never
returned?
>are no ones business nor
> should anyone care what they are.
> if anyone wishes to contact me.. u can at rarecdrcolectr
> at aol dot com. thats rarecdrcole...@aol.com
> if it is edited / censored from this posting just email me
> at america online with that screename. it will work.
>
> thanks for reading..
>
> ps... if you do contact me.. and its a rude or stupid
> email i will ignore it. i will not respond. i dont have
> the time nor ambition to make sure that everyone out
> there believes me or knows all the facts. but since
> i found this thread here i figured i would at least respond
> to the comments..
>
> oh.. and thank you very much to greegor whoever you are.
> even tho you dont know me.. it is clear you use your head.
> peace
(( laughing)) oh sure he ' used his head" when he abused a seven year
old girl!!
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
Know your scum--- http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>
womanGoddess
No nightmares Greg. More like disgust at finding out what a slimeball
Frohman actually is. It was worth the time and effort when the feds
arrested him and destroyed his video tape collection. Sadly the woman
he was hiding behind who truly loved him he was about to let dangling
alone in legal trouble until she woke up and turned states evidence
against him.
Long story short, Glen, you thought you never would be caught.
Problem is when you used the US mail to deliver your pirated and
bootleg tapes in exchange for money, you forgot to cover your fat ass
and do some actual research of what that particular city post office
you were using was active in. Seems pedophiles like to use the US
mail to send their child porn videos and that US mail branch was
particularly vigilant.
Dumbass you, you left Kingston NY where you could have kept at your
bootleg and pirated video selling for years more. Instead, you moved
to another state to hide behind yet another female, where you were
more vunerable.
Talk about being STUPID!!!
>
> She fell in with a whole hyena pack of cyber bullies
> and they've been stalking and harassing for YEARS
> but the second they are ID'd they accuse their
> targets of being stalkers!
>
> I haven't even posted Maureen Elaine McAllister's
> address or phone number but she has posted
> what she THOUGHT was my home address
> several times. I still haven't posted hers.
>
> Thanks for stopping by!
>
> Greg
What's preventing you from doing so greg?
Oh I forgot, you crappy attempt at stalking.
Isn't it ironic you claim I do what you yourself have done?
Greegor
G > and they've been stalking and harassing for YEARS
G > but the second they are ID'd they accuse their
G > targets of being stalkers!
G >
G > I haven't even posted Maureen Elaine McAllister's
G > address or phone number but she has posted
G > what she THOUGHT was my home address
G > several times. I still haven't posted hers.
Moe > What's preventing you from doing so greg?
Moe > Oh I forgot, you crappy attempt at stalking.
Moe > Isn't it ironic you claim I do what you yourself have done?
Can I get a SCAN on that, Moe? Check out this link!
Who is this twerp in the photo with you?
http://www.pichost.ru/show.php/118293_moe.jpg.html
Maureen Elaine McAllister of Dardanelle AR
krp
"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:278116a5-e1f8-4149...@m1g2000vbi.googlegroups.com...
http://www.pichost.ru/show.php/118293_moe.jpg.html
And she DARES call ME fat???
Greegor
womanGoddess
Too bad that is not me, greg.
You fell for the bait, dumbass.
BTW you claim you have my physical address and phone number. And yet
you haven't posted them.
What's stopping you?
(( laughing))
Nice cutting of my post though. But typical of you.
womanGoddess
> "Greegor" <greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Because you ARE fat. You are so fat you can't walk very far and need
a motoirzed chair to get around.
womanGoddess
> Got a better photo of yourself, Moe?
You haven't even found my Tom Welling photobucket photos yet.
How BAD a stalker ARE you Greg?
Greegor
G > and they've been stalking and harassing for YEARS
G > but the second they are ID'd they accuse their
G > targets of being stalkers!
G >
G > I haven't even posted Maureen Elaine McAllister's
G > address or phone number but she has posted
G > what she THOUGHT was my home address
G > several times. I still haven't posted hers.
Moe > What's preventing you from doing so greg?
Moe > Oh I forgot, you crappy attempt at stalking.
Moe > Isn't it ironic you claim I do what you yourself have done?
G > Can I get a SCAN on that, Moe? Check out this link!
G > Who is this twerp in the photo with you?
http://www.pichost.ru/show.php/118293_moe.jpg.html
G > Maureen Elaine McAllister of Dardanelle AR
Moe > Too bad that is not me, greg.
http://www.pichost.ru/show.php/118293_moe.jpg.html
REALLY? This isn't you?
Moe > You fell for the bait, dumbass.
Moe >
Moe > BTW you claim you have my physical
Moe > address and phone number.
Why would I claim that?
Moe > And yet you haven't posted them.
Ah!
Moe > What's stopping you?
Come on, Moe, You live in Frank's house, right?
What's the point in posting it?
Moe > (( laughing))
Moe > Nice cutting of my post though. But typical of you.
freedom
>On Oct 28, 6:10=A0pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Got a better photo of yourself, Moe?
>
> You haven't even found my Tom Welling photobucket photos yet.
>
> How BAD a stalker ARE you Greg?
>From personal experience, I'd say pretty bad. He's tried to stalk me, but
has only ended up stalking some guy hundreds of miles away. =20
Then again, in his defense, Greg is merely posting the misinformation which=
Ken tells him to post. =20
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
criminals
"[I have] [n]ever had [any] standing in the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's=
Association or AN Y connection to them."
--Ken Pangborn in a usenet post on January 1, 2009, denying affiliation
with the TCDLA, to whom he provided bogus educational credentials. His lie=
is disproved here:
http://web.archive.org/web/20060822021821/www.tcdla.com/secure/experts/inde=
x.shtml
"Some photo of some girl without even any documentation on THAT only proves=
that YOU are a PSYCHO! A really STUPID one at that!"
--Ken Pangborn, admitting to being a "stupid" "psycho" in message-ID
<jOp3l.292$Es4...@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
"The FACT is that [my mail-order wife Barbara Sanciprian] and I were
introduced in the FORMAL Spanish tradition by mutual friends, and were
married first in Cuba after 2 year courtship."
--Ken Pangborn, admitting that he began cheating on his wife Peggy on
September 28, 2001, nearly two years before she separated from him
"I'm David Moore and I am insane!"
--Ken Pangborn posting to alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, attempting to claim
that his name is David Moore
"If you call the police, I'll knock out all of your teeth, I'll cripple
you. I may go to prison for it, but when I get out, I'll be able to walk,
but you will still be a cripple."
--Pangborn puppet Greg Hanson of alt.support.child-protective-services **,
in a verbal threat to his girlfriend
** - this conclusion was reached via applying Ken and Greg's logic
Keywords: false allegations,sexual abuse,marital rape, date rape, sexual
harassment,child abuse,domestic violence,rape allegations,false allegations=
womanGoddess
> G > She fell in with a whole hyena pack of cyber bullies
> G > and they've been stalking and harassing for YEARS
> G > but the second they are ID'd they accuse their
> G > targets of being stalkers!
> G >
> G > I haven't even posted Maureen Elaine McAllister's
> G > address or phone number but she has posted
> G > what she THOUGHT was my home address
> G > several times. I still haven't posted hers.
>
> Moe > What's preventing you from doing so greg?
> Moe > Oh I forgot, you crappy attempt at stalking.
> Moe > Isn't it ironic you claim I do what you yourself have done?
>
> G > Can I get a SCAN on that, Moe? Check out this link!
> G > Who is this twerp in the photo with you?
>
> http://www.pichost.ru/show.php/118293_moe.jpg.html
>
> G > Maureen Elaine McAllister of Dardanelle AR
>
> Moe > Too bad that is not me, greg.
>
> http://www.pichost.ru/show.php/118293_moe.jpg.html
>
> REALLY? This isn't you?
Nope, it isn't me.
>
> Moe > You fell for the bait, dumbass.
> Moe >
> Moe > BTW you claim you have my physical
> Moe > address and phone number.
>
> Why would I claim that?
Part of your childish game. As usual for you you make the posturing
but fail to follow through to prove your inference you have my
physical address and phone number. I knew you didn't have either one,
so for me your little wormy way to avoid posting same is more an
amusement for me than anything else.
As I've found out about you, you are big on the talk but don't know
squat. I am starting to agree with Kent that you are in fact mentally
deficient due to some brain malfunction, whether it be from an
accident or from chemical abuse.
>
> Moe > And yet you haven't posted them.
>
> Ah!
Indeed. You DON'T have them.
>
> Moe > What's stopping you?
>
> Come on, Moe, You live in Frank's house, right?
Nope. Try again, idiot.
>
> What's the point in posting it?
Showing how good ( or in this case, sucky) you actually are in
cyberstalking.
Not that I don't already know how sucky you are at it. You missed the
mark so much in what you thought was about me and my family I really
found it amusing how inept you actually are.
>
> Moe > (( laughing))
>
> Moe > Nice cutting of my post though. But typical of you.
Moe
womanGoddess
wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Nov 2009, womanGoddess <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 28, 6:10=A0pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Got a better photo of yourself, Moe?
>
> > You haven't even found my Tom Welling photobucket photos yet.
>
> > How BAD a stalker ARE you Greg?
> >From personal experience, I'd say pretty bad. He's tried to stalk me, but
>
> has only ended up stalking some guy hundreds of miles away. =20
He's missed with me and my family pretty much. I like his little
bluff that he would post my physical address and my phone number and
how suddenly " reluctant" he is in actually doing so.
The guy can't even follow directions on how to use Google News to
find three articles on the same guy. Talk about STUPID!!
>
> Then again, in his defense, Greg is merely posting the misinformation which=
>
> Ken tells him to post. =20
Probably so. With Greg, we're not talking about a guy who has enough
brain cells to form an independent thought. Greg seems to need Kennie
to tell him what to do.
Its sad, really. The guy mooches off of Lisa, doesn't bother to get a
job and be a man and pay his bills, and he's now, what 50 years old?
Where's his nest egg for his decrepit years? You know Lisa is going
to wake up as to what she lost because of him and will have enough of
his sorry ass.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
Know your scum--- http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>
> http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
> The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
> criminals
>
> "[I have] [n]ever had [any] standing in the Texas Criminal Defense Lawyer's=
>
> Association or AN Y connection to them."
> --Ken Pangborn in a usenet post on January 1, 2009, denying affiliation
> with the TCDLA, to whom he provided bogus educational credentials. His lie=
>
> is disproved here:http://web.archive.org/web/20060822021821/www.tcdla.com/secure/expert...
>
> x.shtml
>
> "Some photo of some girl without even any documentation on THAT only proves=
>
> that YOU are a PSYCHO! A really STUPID one at that!"
> --Ken Pangborn, admitting to being a "stupid" "psycho" in message-ID
> <jOp3l.292$Es4....@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>
__!wills^check!___
> On Oct 28, 3:30 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> G > She fell in with a whole hyena pack of cyber bullies
>> G > and they've been stalking and harassing for YEARS
>> G > but the second they are ID'd they accuse their
>> G > targets of being stalkers!
>> G >
>> G > I haven't even posted Maureen Elaine McAllister's
>> G > address or phone number but she has posted
>> G > what she THOUGHT was my home address
>> G > several times. I still haven't posted hers.
>>
>> Moe > What's preventing you from doing so greg?
>> Moe > Oh I forgot, you crappy attempt at stalking.
>> Moe > Isn't it ironic you claim I do what you yourself have done?
>>
>> Can I get a SCAN on that, Moe? Check out this link!
>> Who is this twerp in the photo with you?
>>
>> http://www.pichost.ru/show.php/118293_moe.jpg.html
>>
>> Maureen Elaine McAllister of Dardanelle AR
>
> Too bad that is not me, greg.
>
> You fell for the bait, dumbass.
>
Maureen Mcallister
PO Box 474
Dardanelle, AR 72834-0474
__!wills^check!___
> Know your scum---
Greegor
Hey Moe! How come you weren't publicly listed
as one of the people Glen Frohman supposedly
ripped off?
Why did you get into all of the griping
about how he had violated copyright law?
What does all of the copyright law griping
have to do with how you decided so
late after buying the tape that you
wanted to return it?
Were you trying to use COPYRIGHT LAW
as your justification for going back on your
deal to buy a bootleg?
You mentioned that Glen was in Google News.
http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=Glen+Frohman
Google News shows NOTHING on Glen Frohman.
Did I spell it wrong?
It just keeps saying
"Your search - [name] - did not match any documents."
Here are three other spellings. Also come up with NOTHING.
http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=Glenn+Frohman
http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=Glenn+Frohmann
http://news.google.com/news/search?aq=f&pz=1&cf=all&ned=us&hl=en&q=Glen+Frohmann
TOP
Why did you avoid the archives? Searching on google news withOUT going
to the year, or withOUT using the archives, returns only recent news. It
says so on the google news search page.
Of course you innocently missed that, right?
But then you have never failed to use archives before to stalk others.
Mistake or lie. You tell us.
Care to explain all your lies about Frohman, or did you just ""not
know?"" LOL
TOP (The Other Pangborn)
Greegor
The best it shows is an indictment and a partner who turned states
evidence.
Why is there no story about CONVICTION?
You DO know that an indictment is not a conviction, right?
http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0F57451B34D48811&p_docnum=1
CHARGES SAY MAN PIRATED VIDEOS
Illegally taped concerts sold
BYLINE: Wes Hills Dayton Daily News
DATE: August 8, 2002
PUBLICATION: Dayton Daily News (OH)
EDITION: CITY
SECTION: LOCAL
PAGE: B1
DAYTON - A Troy man was indicted Wednesday on charges he conspired to
sell on the Internet pirated videos of the Dave Matthews Band, Bruce
Springsteen and other performers.
Glen Frohman of 513 W. Market St. also was charged with selling
unauthorized videos on Oct. 5, 2001. Frohman faces 10 years in federal
prison if convicted on both charges.
The indictment claims Frohman, "on numerous occasions, would either
alone or with the assistance of other individuals, tape performances
of musical entertainers without the consent of said entertainers and
offer these videotapes for sale on the Internet through a Web site.
"Customers were instructed to send payment in the form of a check or
money order" to a post office box in Troy controlled by Frohman, the
indictment claims.
The "overt acts" in the conspiracy allege Frohman:
* Sent through the U.S. mail Oct. 5 a videotape of a live musical
performance of the Dave Matthews Band.
* Sent on Dec. 11 a videotape of a live musical performance of Bruce
Springsteen.
In a sworn statement, Postal Inspector M.E. Arthur details how the
case developed:
Arthur states that he was contacted Aug. 15 by the agent for musician
Eric Johnson regarding Frohman advertising a Web site offering to sell
concert videos from numerous musicians.
On Sept. 25, Arthur states, he used an undercover name to place an
order through the Web site for the Dave Matthews Band's Tabernacle and
Austin City Limits .
Arthur states that after he received the videos for $39, Wendy Yascur,
coordinator of evidence control and anti-piracy special projects for
the Recording Industry Association of America, was contacted.
Yascur sent the videotapes to Coran Capshaw, manager for the Dave
Matthews Band, who provided a sworn statement stating the band had
"never licensed, consented to or otherwise authorized neither Glen
Frohman . . . to manufacture, distribute or offer to sell the videos
of the live musical performances."
On Dec. 11, Arthur states, he ordered five more videos - live musical
performances of Tori Amos, Bruce Springsteen, Eric Clapton, Prince and
Phish - and received them after sending $153.
Again, Yascur forwarded the tapes to the musicians' management
companies to confirm they had been pirated.
Arthur also cites an e-mail message allegedly sent by Frohman to Jim
Weiss, president, The I Trade Group Inc., in which he states, "Yeah, I
deal in bootleg tapes . . . (video currently, but it was audio for 15
years.)"
Frohman also states he has "been running an online business with my
tapes for eight years."
Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy
business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's Troy
residence on June 20.
Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
womanGoddess
LOL!!
That's the BEST you can do?
womanGoddess
>
> Why did you avoid the archives? Searching on google news withOUT going
> to the year, or withOUT using the archives, returns only recent news. It
> says so on the google news search page.
>
> Of course you innocently missed that, right?
Sure he did! He's pure innocence! I even in my directions I posted
showed that the search was for ALL dates.
Greg, as usual , is doing his little game. Eithe rthat or he's far
stupider than anyone thought.
But then he could be both.
(( laughing))
>
> But then you have never failed to use archives before to stalk others.
> Mistake or lie. You tell us.
>
> http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Glen+Frohman+pirated&btnG=Sear...
>
> Care to explain all your lies about Frohman, or did you just ""not
> know?"" LOL
He pretends he doesn't know, That's part of his "game' he plays with
me, a game I have no intention of playing as he wishes.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
Know your scum--- http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>
> TOP (The Other Pangborn)
womanGoddess
> On Nov 2, 1:17 pm, TOP <T...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > Going for plausible deniability again, Hanson?
>
> > Why did you avoid the archives? Searching on google news withOUT going
> > to the year, or withOUT using the archives, returns only recent news. It
> > says so on the google news search page.
>
> > Of course you innocently missed that, right?
>
> > But then you have never failed to use archives before to stalk others.
> > Mistake or lie. You tell us.
>
>
> > Care to explain all your lies about Frohman, or did you just ""not
> > know?"" LOL
>
> > TOP (The Other Pangborn)
>
> The best it shows is an indictment and a partner who turned states
> evidence.
> Why is there no story about CONVICTION?
> You DO know that an indictment is not a conviction, right?
>
>
> http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0F5...
And the idiot once again posts something copyrighted by a
newspaper......
Heres a clue, Greg. Compare that with the list of MPAA convictions on
the web site whose addie I posted some weeks ago. If you actually
have some cognitive thought, you can easily figure out which
conviction is his,
womanGoddess
>
>
>
> > TOP (The Other Pangborn)
Oh greg, here's where I posted Frohman's convict number:
I even had a link where people can see for themselves in the post.
So Greg, are you still claiming that he was never convicted?
womanGoddess
Oh greg, here's where I posted Frohman's convict number:
I even had a link where people can see for themselves in the post.
So Greg, are you still claiming that he was never convicted?
Moe
Greegor
X > And the idiot once again posts something
X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
> > Heres a clue, Greg. Compare that with the list of MPAA convictions on
> > the web site whose addie I posted some weeks ago. If you actually
> > have some cognitive thought, you can easily figure out which
> > conviction is his,
>
> > Moe
> > Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
> > " A vampire cop? REALLY?"
> > "http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
>
> > Know your scum---http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>
> Oh greg, here's where I posted Frohman's convict number:
Moe > I even had a link where people can see for themselves in the
post.
The link is broken and as far as I can tell never did work.
http://inmateloc.bop.gov/locatorservlet/gov.bop.inmatelocator.FindInmateHttpServle
Let's break that down:
Dead. Is it in the internet archive?
What STATE would that be for?
Why no designation of state or Federal?
Why is there an http in the MIDDLE of that link?
Why is the word servlet chopped off even
way back in 2004?
http://inmateloc.bop.gov/locatorservlet/gov.bop.inmatelocator.FindInmateHttpServle
How could this LINK have EVER worked with
http in the middle and servlet chopped off?
You said people could check for themselves.
But that's not really true, is it Maureen?
Moe > So Greg, are you still claiming that he was never convicted?
I never claimed that he wasn't convicted.
I claimed you stalked him for over 10 years
and haven't posted online verifiable PROOF
that he was CONVICTED.
I saw proof he was indicted, and one of your
anonymous henchmen posted it as if proof
of indictment was proof of conviction.
Did you refer to 43481-061 in any other posts online?
Is that a state or Federal number?
You DO know that an indictment is NOT a conviction, right, Moe?
krp
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2heaf5lpa04mekmmk...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:17:04 -0800 (PST), Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [Snips for brevity]
>
>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy
>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's Troy
>>> > > residence on June 20.
>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>>>
>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>>
>>X > And the idiot once again posts something
>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>>
>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>
> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not
> allow for the copying of the entire work.
Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous "Betamax"
case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
Kent Wills
wrote:
Cite?
"(CONTEXT REMOVED AS TO THE BELOW CLAIM)"
Kenneth Robert Pangborn admitting he alters the context of posts
when he replies.
MID FyUom.1363$Jd7....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net
krp
>>>
>>>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy
>>>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's
>>>>> > > Troy
>>>>> > > residence on June 20.
>>>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>>>>>
>>>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>>>>
>>>>X > And the idiot once again posts something
>>>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>>>>
>>>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
>>>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>>>
>>> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously.
>>> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not
>>> allow for the copying of the entire work.
>>
>>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous
>>"Betamax"
>>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
>
> Cite?
You can't be THAT stupid. Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.
READ you illiterate ASSHOLE;
"Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of
individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting
does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use."
http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=betamaxcase
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technology/articles/groksterprimer_033805.htm
Now what IDIOTIC comeback can we expect from our resident IDIOT POLACK????
Greegor
X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
G > So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
G > know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
KBW > Fair use allows you to copy portions for
KBW > discussion. It does not allow for the
KBW > copying of the entire work.
KBW > I've explained this to you in the past.
Got a LINK to where you ""explained"" this in the past?
KBW > I even cited where in copyright law you
KBW > will find this.
All the better for you to LINK to same!
KBW > Yes, you think you're exempt from all
KBW > criminal and civil law. Your record, in
KBW > addition to your current actions, proves this.
See further below regarding your record.
Kent, Please tell me what you THINK you know about
the FAIR USE exception to copyright law.
Please describe what the background and
INTENTION of the FAIR USE exception is.
Is this going to be another game where you
make strong claims and then when proven
wrong you blame the statements onto OTHERS?
Like when you claimed Kim is a male?
Please make it clear what parts you personally
BELIEVE and what parts you think you
can weasel out of and blame onto other
people you are parroting.
I am still fairly amused that some anonymous
schmuck thought he had PROVED Glen
had been convicted using only proof that
Glen had been INDICTED.
You DO know that indictment is NOT conviction, right?
Do you think Moe does, and her idiot anonymous ""helper""?
Can you find any more on 43481-061 or Glen Frohman?
Was that YOU who posted the anonymous idiocy, Kent?
You seem to exhibit some subtle sort of ownership
of the hollow argument on Copyright v FAIR USE.
Kent Bradley Wills AKA Compuelf DOB Jan 8 1969 Felony Garage Burglar
used teen as accomplice
Kent's Appeal
IN PRINTED LAW BOOKS
West's North Western Reporter
Second Series
A Unit of the National Reporter System
Volume 696 N.W.2d
Cite as 696 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 2005)
Kent's Appeal
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/states/Iowa/04-0202.asp.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
http://www.assess.co.polk.ia.us/cgi-bin/seephoto/photosize.cgi?gp=802415452029&size=Large
Notice that KENT made claims re sale of 202 NW College apartment
building
That's geoparcel gp=802415452029
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
( Step by step instructions elsewhere with name Kent B Wills )
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
http://www.rogersgis.com/zoom/Residential_Development/indexfull.htm
http://www.arcountydata.com/county.asp?county=Benton
TWO of Kent Wills' usenet newsgroup identities:
Do It Yourself Instructions to look up Kent's record
Iowa Department of Corrections records for Kent
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
Name Kent Bradley Wills [ As Collected Sept 13, 2009 ]
Offender Number 1155768
Sex M
Birth Date 01/08/1969
Age 40
Location
Offense
County Of Commitment
Commitment Date
Duration
TDD/SDD *
* TDD = Tentative Discharge Date
* SDD = Supervision Discharge Date
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 12/16/2008
Probation C Felony Polk 12/16/2008
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 11/25/2003
IN PRINTED LAW BOOKS
West's North Western Reporter
Second Series
A Unit of the National Reporter System
Volume 696 N.W.2d
Cite as 696 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 2005)
Kent's Appeal
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/states/Iowa/04-0202.asp.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 31 / 04-0202
Filed May 6, 2005
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
KENT BRADLEY WILLS,
Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk
County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.
Defendant appeals claiming ineffective
assistance of counsel. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender,
and Tricia Johnston, Assistant State
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin
Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, John P.
Sarcone, County Attorney, and John Judisch,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
WIGGINS, Justice.
Kent Wills appeals his conviction for
second-degree burglary contending that
an attached garage is a separate occupied
structure from that of the living quarters
of the residence. In this appeal, we must
determine whether trial counsel was
ineffective for (1) failing to move for
judgment of acquittal on the basis there
was insufficient evidence to convict Wills
of second-degree burglary when he entered
an attached garage of a residence when no
persons were present in the garage, but
when persons were present in the living
quarters; and (2) failing to object to a
jury instruction based on this same
argument. Because we find there was no
legal basis for the motion for judgment
of acquittal or the objection to the jury
instruction, Wills' trial counsel was not
ineffective. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Around 1 a.m., an Ankeny resident called
the local police to report that a car
alarm sounded in the resident's
neighborhood. The city dispatched a police
officer to the location. Observing nothing
unusual, the officer left the area, only
to be stopped a couple of blocks later
by a person who informed the officer he
had witnessed someone running from the
area of the car alarm. As the officer
started driving back to the area of the
car alarm, he noticed a person walking
on the sidewalk. The officer asked the
person, a minor, if he had noticed anybody
running from the area. The minor answered
that he had not. While the officer and
another officer were speaking to the minor,
another resident of the neighborhood
arrived in her car and informed the
officers that she had observed two people,
one of whom was heavy set with a blinking
light on his back pocket, walking in the
area of her neighbor's residence. She
observed the heavier-set individual, later
identified as Wills, enter her neighbor's
attached garage through an unlocked service
door. She further observed a smaller
individual standing by a van parked in
the neighbor's driveway.
The officers eventually let the minor leave
even though they found a large amount of
coins, a flashlight, and an electronic
pocket organizer in his pockets. After
releasing the minor, the police officers
drove to the residence where the neighbor
observed the two suspicious people and
woke the owner. The owner, his wife,
and two daughters were in the residence
sleeping at the time. After a search
of his vehicles, the owner discovered
change and an electronic pocket organizer
were missing from the vehicles. The
owner's daughter reported a diamond ring
and some change were missing from her
vehicle. The officers then contacted
the minor's parents, who informed the
officers the minor was with Wills. After
the officers questioned the minor again,
he admitted his involvement in the theft
and implicated Wills in the burglary.
Although Wills denied involvement in the
burglary, the officers arrested him.
The State filed a trial information
charging Wills with second-degree
burglary. The State later amended the
information to include two additional
charges of burglary in the third degree
and using a juvenile to commit an
indictable offense.
The jury returned a verdict finding Wills
guilty of the crimes of burglary in the
second degree, burglary in the third
degree, and using a juvenile to commit
an indictable offense. Wills appeals his
conviction for second-degree burglary
claiming ineffective assistance of
counsel.
II. Scope of Review.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
are derived from the Sixth Amendment of the
United States Constitution. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-86, 104 S.
Ct. 2052, 2063-64, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 691-93
(1984). Our review for a claim involving
violations of the Constitution is de novo.
State v. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d 95, 100
(Iowa 2004). We normally preserve
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
for postconviction relief actions. State
v. Carter, 602 N.W. 2d 818, 820 (Iowa 1999).
However, we will address such claims on
direct appeal when the record is sufficient
to permit a ruling. State v. Artzer,
609 N.W.2d 526, 531 (Iowa 2000). The
appellate record in the present case is
sufficient to allow us to address Wills'
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
on direct appeal.
In order for a defendant to succeed on a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
the defendant must prove: (1) counsel
failed to perform an essential duty and
(2) prejudice resulted. Id. Prejudice
results when "there is a reasonable
probability that, but for the counsel's
unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different."
State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 378
(Iowa 1998) (quoting Strickland, 466
U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068,
80 L. Ed. 2d at 698). Wills' arguments
also raise issues of statutory
interpretation, which we review for
correction of errors at law. State v.
Wolford Corp., 689 N.W.2d 471, 473 (Iowa 2004).
III. Analysis.
To find Wills guilty of burglary in the
second degree, the State had to prove
Wills perpetrated a burglary "in or
upon an occupied structure in which one
or more persons are present . . . ." Iowa
Code § 713.5(2) (2003) (emphasis added).
In this appeal, Wills first contends his
trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to move for a judgment of acquittal on
the basis there was insufficient evidence
to support a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage, there were persons
present in or upon the occupied structure.
Wills concedes the garage was an occupied
structure, but argues the living quarters
and the attached garage are separate and
independent occupied structures; therefore,
the jury could not have found there were
people present in the attached garage
at the time of the burglary.
The Code defines an "occupied structure" as:
[A]ny building, structure, appurtenances
to buildings and structures, land, water
or air vehicle, or similar place adapted
for overnight accommodation of persons,
or occupied by persons for the purpose of
carrying on business or other activity
therein, or for the storage or safekeeping
of anything of value. Such a structure
is an "occupied structure" whether or not
a person is actually present.
Id. § 702.12.
Wills relies on State v. Smothers, 590
N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 1999), to argue the
garage and the living quarters are separate
and independent occupied structures. In
Smothers, two separate and distinct
businesses connected by interior fire doors
were operated in the same structure.
590 N.W.2d at 723. We held the defendant
committed two burglaries by entering each
business because "[t]he facility's
construction history and physical make-up
demonstrate that the portions are
independent working units which constitute
'[a] combination of materials to form a
construction for occupancy [or] use.'" Id.
Smothers is not at odds with the present
case because the living quarters and the
garage are not separate or independent
units of the residence.
Our review of the record reveals the garage
in question was a three-car attached garage
separated from the living quarters by a
door. The same roof covered the garage as
the rest of the residence. The living
quarters surrounded the garage on two sides.
It was structurally no different from any
other room in the residence.
The garage was a functional part of the
residence. On the night of the incident,
the door was unlocked. The owner of the
residence used two stalls in the garage to
park the family vehicles. The owner used
the third stall for his motorcycle. As
such, the garage and the living quarters
are a single "structure" or "building"
functioning as an integral part of the
family residence. Thus, the residence
including the garage is a single
"occupied structure" under section 702.12.
See, e.g., People v. Ingram, 48 Cal. Rptr.
2d 256 (Ct. App.1995) (holding defendant's
entry into an attached garage constituted
first-degree burglary because the garage
was attached to the house; therefore,
burglary of the garage was burglary of
an inhabited dwelling house); People v.
Cunningham, 637 N.E.2d 1247, 1252 (Ill.
App. Ct. 1994) (holding "ordinarily an
attached garage is a 'dwelling' because
it is part of the structure in which
the owner or occupant lives");
State v. Lara, 587 P.2d 52, 53
(N.M. Ct. App. 1978) (holding "burglary
of the [attached] garage was burglary of
the dwelling house because the garage was
a part of the structure used as living
quarters"); People v. Green, 141 A.D.2d
760, 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) (holding
"[s]ince the garage in the present case
was structurally part of a building
which was used for overnight lodging of
various persons, it must be considered
as part of a dwelling"); White v. State,
630 S.W. 2d 340, 342 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982)
(holding an attached garage under the
same roof as the home would be considered
a habitation within the purview of the
penal code because the garage is a
structure appurtenant to and connected
to the house); State v. Murbach, 843 P.
2d 551, 553 (Wash. Ct. App 1993)
(holding the definition of a dwelling
under Washington's burglary statute
included an attached garage).
Had Wills' trial counsel moved for a
judgment of acquittal on the basis there
was insufficient evidence to support
a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage there were no persons
present in or upon the occupied
structure, it would have been overruled
by the court because the owner and his
family were present in the residence at
the time of the burglary.
Wills also claims his counsel was
ineffective for failing to object to
the jury instruction used by the district
court on the same ground; that the
living quarters were a separate and
independent occupied structure from the
attached garage. The instruction as
given stated:
The State must prove all of the following
elements of Burglary in the Second
Degree as to Count I:
1. On or about the 12th day of August,
2003, the defendant or someone he aided
and abetted broke into or entered the
residence at . . . .
2. The residence at . . . was an occupied
structure as defined in Instruction No. 29.
3. The defendant or the person he aided
and abetted did not have permission or
authority to break into the residence at ...
4. The defendant or the person he aided
and abetted did so with the specific
intent to commit a theft therein.
5. During the incident persons were present
in or upon the occupied structure.
If the State has proved all of the elements,
the defendant is guilty of Burglary in the
Second Degree. If the State has failed to prove
any of the elements, the defendant is not
guilty of Burglary in the Second Degree and
you will then consider the charge of
Attempted Burglary in the Second Degree
explained in Instruction No. 21.
(Emphasis added.)
Wills' claim is without merit. As we have
discussed, the residence is the one and
only "occupied structure" under the facts
of this case. Had Wills' trial counsel
made this objection to the instruction,
it would have been overruled.
Therefore, Wills' trial counsel is not
ineffective for failing to move
for a judgment of acquittal or objecting
to the instruction because there was no
legal basis for the motion or objection.
See State v. Hochmuth, 585 N.W.2d 234,
238 (Iowa 1998) (holding trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise an
issue that has no merit).
IV. Disposition.
We affirm the judgment of the district
court because Wills' trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise
meritless issues.
AFFIRMED.
---------------------------------
Pay close attention to past owners of 202 NW College Ave.
Kent made affirmative claims about the property online.
Kent's folks sold it in 1994 while Kent lived there!
On 03/30/1999 Sweeney's filed on Kent for UNPAID RENT!
GeoParcel 8024-15-452-029 District/Parcel 181/00392-048-000
[ As Collected Sept 13, 2009 ]
Seller: WILLS, FRED A. & JANET R.
Buyer: THE SWEENEY REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST
04/26/1994 135,000 D/Deed 7010/188
-
Seller: SHELDAHL, ERIC A.
Buyer: WILLS, FRED
01/02/1990 130,500 D/Deed 6189/972
A Larger photo:
http://www.assess.co.polk.ia.us/cgi-bin/seephoto/photosize.cgi?gp=802415452029&size=Large
Notice that name SWEENEY above?
Check this out!
Iowa Courts Docket and Disposition web site
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
Iowa Courts
Online Search
< Start A Case Search Here! > click
Iowa Courts Online Search
Search Selection
Under Trial Court < click on Case Search >
Wills Kent B
02401 ESPR015146 INA J WILLS ESTATE
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT ******
05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT
05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRES VS KENT
05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRES VS KENT
05771 STAN201670 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 STAN210929 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
A list of case numbers will be presented.
Click on the SWEENEY case, 4th one down.
Under the "Filings" tab:
JUDGEMENT DEFAULT BRANDT GREGORY D 08/25/1999 09/01/1999 09/01/1999
Comments: $156.25 7.244% FROM 03/30/99
COMPUTER GENERATED NOTICE 05/11/1999 05/11/1999 05/11/1999
Comments: Notice of Proof of Claim
RETURN OF ORIGINAL NOTICE 04/21/1999 04/23/1999 04/23/1999
Comments: 4/10/99 KENT PERS
37.60
VERIFICATION OF ACCT HAS BEEN FILED 03/30/1999 03/30/1999
03/30/1999
SMALL CLAIMS ORIGINAL NOTICE SWEENEY RENTALS 03/30/1999 03/30/1999
03/30/1999
Comments: UNPAID RENT
Under the "Financial" Tab:
Summary Orig Paid Due
COSTS 98.60 31.00 67.60
FINE 0.00 0.00 0.00
SURCHARGE 0.00 0.00 0.00
RESTITUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00
OTHER 238.46 0.00 238.46
-----------
$337.06 $31.00 $306.06
SUPPORT/ALIMONY N/A 0.00 N/A
----------------------------------------
Kent's 2000 Felony, first of TWO in Iowa
WILLS, KENT BRADLEY 05771 FECR145250 (POLK)
01/24/2000 Offense Date THEFT 2ND DEGREE - 1978 (FELD) WITHDRAWN
01/24/2000 Offense Date THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
03/07/2000 DEFERRED JUDGMENT (At that time) Sentence: 365 Day(s)
03/07/2000 PROBATION INFORMAL; 8/07/01-TRNFRD TO FORMAL 365 Day(s)
03/07/2000 COMMUNITY SERVICE 50 Hour(s)
03/07/2000 REFERRED TO OTHER AGENCY 1ST TIME OFFENDER CLASS
08/07/2001 JAIL PROB HRG 11 Day(s)
08/07/2001 JAIL PROB HRG 11 Day(s) TIME SERVED
08/07/2001 PROBATION EXTENDED PROB HRG
04/16/2002 PROBATION EXTENDED TO 08/06/03
04/16/2002 IMPOSED 7 Day(s)
04/16/2002 OTHER/MISCELLANEOUS PROB HRG 6 Day(s)
04/16/2002 DETENTION PROB HRG 6 Day(s)
08/07/2003 PRIOR ORDERS CONTINUED PROB EXTENDED UNTIL 8-06-04
11/26/2003 REVOKED PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL
11/26/2003 PLACEMENT HRG PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL120 Day(s)
11/26/2003 SUSPEND PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; TIME SERVED 106 Day(s)
11/26/2003 COMMUNITY CORR PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL 14 Day(s)
( When Kent's second Felony revoked the rest of his Probation.)
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
Iowa Courts
Online Search
< Start A Case Search Here! > click
Iowa Courts Online Search
Search Selection
Under Trial Court < click on Case Search >
Wills Kent B
02401 ESPR015146 INA J WILLS ESTATE
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT ******
05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT
05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRES VS KENT
05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRES VS KENT
05771 STAN201670 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 STAN210929 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
A list of case numbers will be presented.
Click on case FECR145250, 2nd one down.
Under the "[Criminal Charges/Disposition]" tab:
Charges, Dispositions, Sentences
Title: STATE VS KENT B WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR145250 (POLK)
Citation Number:
Defendant: WILLS, KENT BRADLEY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 01 Charge
Charge:
714.2(2) Description: THEFT 2ND DEGREE - 1978 (FELD)
Offense Date: 01/24/2000 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0386367-01
Adjudication
Charge:
714.2(2) Description: THEFT 2ND DEGREE - 1978 (FELD)
Adj.:
DNU-WITHDRAWN Adj.Date: 03/07/2000
Adj.Judge:
WILSON, ROBERT D
Comments: AMENDED TI FILED
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(2) Description: THEFT 2ND DEGREE - 1978 (FELD)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: WITHDRAWN
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 02 Charge
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Offense Date: 01/24/2000 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0386367-02
Adjudication
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Adj.:
DEFERRED Adj.Date: 03/07/2000
Adj.Judge:
WILSON, ROBERT D
Comments:
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: DEFERRED JUDGMENT
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 365 Day(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 365 Day(s)
Comment:
INFORMAL;8/07/01-TRNFRD TO FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 50 Hour(s)
Comment:
TO BE DETERMINED BY PROBATION
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: REFERRED TO OTHER AGENCY
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
1ST TIME OFFENDER CLASS
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
08/07/2001 Sentence: JAIL
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: JACOBS, LOUISE M
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 11 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
08/07/2001 Sentence: TIME SERVED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: JACOBS, LOUISE M
Facility Type:
J Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 11 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
08/07/2001 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: JACOBS, LOUISE M
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROB HRG-4/16/02-PROBATION EXTENDED TO 08/06/03
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
04/16/2002 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: COPPOLA, CAROL L
Facility Type:
J Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 7 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
04/16/2002 Sentence: OTHER/MISCELLANEOUS
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: COPPOLA, CAROL L
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 6 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
04/16/2002 Sentence: DETENTION
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: COPPOLA, CAROL L
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 6 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
08/07/2003 Sentence: PRIOR ORDERS CONTINUED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: MCGHEE, ODELL
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROB EXTENDED UNTIL 8-06-04
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
11/26/2003 Sentence: REVOKED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: SMITH, JOE E
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
11/26/2003 Sentence: PLACEMENT
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: SMITH, JOE E
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 120 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
11/26/2003 Sentence: SUSPEND
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: SMITH, JOE E
Facility Type:
J Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 106 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; TIME SERVED
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
11/26/2003 Sentence: COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: SMITH, JOE E
Facility Type:
J Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 14 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL
---------------------------------------
Charges, Dispositions, Sentences
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
Citation Number:
Count 01
08/12/2003 Offense Date BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
12/17/2003 Adj.Date: GUILTY
01/16/2004 Sentence 10 Year(s) SUSPENDED PRISON
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION 2 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FT DSM FACILITY-MAX
BENEFITS
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE 150 Hour(s)
12/17/2003 Sentence: JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
Count 02
08/12/2003 Offense BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR VEHICLE
(AGMS)
12/17/2003 GUILTY
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON Duration: 2 Year(s) SUSPENDED PRISON
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION Duration: 2 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FT DSM FACILITY-MAX
BENEFITS
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE Duration: 150 Hour(s)
12/17/2003 Sentence: JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/06/09
Count 03
08/12/2003 USING JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE OFFENSE(FELC)709A.6
(2)
12/17/2003 GUILTY
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON Duration: 10 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON 10 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION 2 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FT DSM FACILITY-MAX
BENEFITS
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE 150 Hour(s)
12/17/2003 Sentence: JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
Charges, Dispositions, Sentences
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
Citation Number:
Count 01 Charge
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Offense Date: 08/12/2003 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0668408-01
Adjudication
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Adj.:
DNU-GUILTY Adj.Date: 12/17/2003
Adj.Judge:
HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Comments: GUILTY
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 150 Hour(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
12/17/2003 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 02 Charge
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Offense Date: 08/12/2003 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0668408-02
Adjudication
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Adj.:
DNU-GUILTY Adj.Date: 12/17/2003
Adj.Judge:
HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Comments: GUILTY
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 150 Hour(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
12/17/2003 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/06/09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 03 Charge
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Offense Date: 08/12/2003 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0668408-03
Adjudication
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Adj.:
DNU-GUILTY Adj.Date: 12/17/2003
Adj.Judge:
HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Comments: GUILTY
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 150 Hour(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
12/17/2003 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
-------------------------------------
Filings
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
ORDER OF DISCHARGE OVROM ELIZA 12/16/2008 12/16/2008 12/16/2008
Comments: FROM PROBATION
OTHER EVENT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 12/16/2008 12/16/2008
12/16/2008
Comments: FIELD DISCHARGE REPORT
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 12/16/2008 12/16/2008 12/16/2008
Comments: REVOCATION HEARING SET FOR 1/07/2009 IS CANCELLED
DEFENDANT HAS NOT PAID IN FULL FINANCIAL
OBLIGATIONS
ORDER FOR PROBATION REVOCATION HEARING MOISAN CYNTHIA M 12/05/2008
12/05/2008 12/05/2008
Comments: ON 1/7/09 AT 9:30AM RM204
PROBATION REVOCATION 12/05/2008 12/05/2008 12/05/2008
Comments: REPORT OF VIOLATIONS FILED BY JAN HORNOCKER
FORMAL PROBATION HUTCHISON ROBERT A 01/25/2006 01/26/2006
01/26/2006
Comments: EXTENDED TO 01/16/09 OR UNTIL CONDITIONS ARE MET
COURT ORDERED PAYMENT PLAN 01/13/2006 01/13/2006 01/13/2006
OTHER ORDER HUTCHISON ROBERT A 01/11/2006 01/13/2006 01/13/2006
Comments: DEFT'S PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09; DEFT TO
COMPLETE
CONDITIONS LISTED
OTHER EVENT 09/15/2005 09/15/2005 09/15/2005
Comments: THE SUPREME COURT RETURNED FILE, PSI, 4 TRANSCRIPTS,
AND 1 ENVELOPE OF EXHIBITS
OTHER EVENT APPELLATE DEFENDER'S OFFICE 06/09/2005 06/13/2005
06/13/2005
Comments: STATEMENT OF HOURS
15.9 HOURS = $795.00
ATTORNEY - GRETA TRUMAN
OTHER EVENT CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 06/02/2005 09/15/2005
09/15/2005
Comments: BILL OF COSTS
$27.50 TAXED AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND PAYABLE
TO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
#04-0202
OTHER ORDER SUPREME COURT OF IOWA 06/02/2005 09/15/2005 09/15/2005
Comments: RE DEFT'S APPEAL CLAIMING INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL:
JUDGEMENT AFFIRMED
#04-0202
PROCEDENDO CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 06/02/2005 09/15/2005 09/15/2005
Comments: AFFIRMED
PROCEED W/DILIGENCE AS IF THERE HAD BEEN NO
APPEAL
#04-0202
COMMUNITY SERVICE 05/25/2004 05/27/2004 05/27/2004
Comments: 135 HRS COMPLETED 5/24/04
INDIGENT DEFENSE CLAIM FORM TAYLOR KAREN 05/11/2004 05/13/2004
05/13/2004
Comments: $1150
ELECTRONIC FILING
OTHER EVENT 04/26/2004 04/28/2004 04/28/2004
Comments: SUPREME COURT REC'D 1 FILE, 1 PSI ENVELOPE,
1 EXHIBIT(1 ENVELOPE DATED 1/21/04)
REC'D 4/20/04
OTHER ORDER NICKERSON DON 04/23/2004 04/27/2004 04/27/2004
Comments: THE BALANCE OF ATTNY FEE AND CC SHALL BE
CONVERTED TO 135 HRS COMM SERVICE
TO BE COMPLETED FROM FT DSM FACILITY
OR TRANSFER TO INTERSTATE COMPACT
COMMUNITY SERVICE 04/22/2004 04/23/2004 04/23/2004
Comments: 150 HRS COMPLETED
APRIL 8, 2004
OTHER EVENT 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004
Comments: RECD CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR DEFT
OTHER EVENT 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004
Comments: FILE AND PSI SENT TO THE SUPREME COURT
ONE ENVELOPE OF EXHIBITS FILED 1/21/04
SENT TO THE SUPREME COURT
OTHER EVENT 04/19/2004 04/19/2004 04/19/2004
Comments: SUP CRT RECEIVED 2 TRANSCRIPTS OF PROCEEDINGS
FILED 4/1/04 (VOL I & II)
SUP CRT 04-202
OTHER EVENT 04/06/2004 05/18/2004 05/18/2004
Comments: 2 TRANSCRIPTS FILED 4/1/04 SENT TO THE
SUPREME COURT
DNU - COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT MAXEY REBECCA 04/01/2004 04/05/2004
04/05/2004
Comments: OF PROCEEDINGS ON 12/16/03
VOLUME II
DNU - COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT MAXEY REBECCA 04/01/2004 04/05/2004
04/05/2004
Comments: OF PROCEEDINGS ON 12/15/03
VOLUME I
OTHER EVENT 03/31/2004 03/31/2004 03/31/2004
Comments: EXHIBITS RETURNED
OTHER EVENT 03/31/2004 03/31/2004 03/31/2004
Comments: ENVELOPE OF EXHIBITS CHECKED OUT TO COURT
REPORTER R.M.
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 03/29/2004 03/31/2004 03/31/2004
Comments: MOTION IS GRANTED REGARDING REVIEW OF
PAYMENT OF COURT APPOINTED ATTY FEES AND
THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER IS ORDERED TO MAKE
PAYMENT AS REQUESTED.
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 03/29/2004 03/30/2004 03/31/2004
ENTERED IN ERROR
Comments: STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER SHALL MAKE PAYMENT AS
REQUESTED.
MOTION 03/18/2004 03/19/2004 03/19/2004
Comments: TO ENLARGE TIME FOR DOCKETING FILED BY
ASSISTANT APPELLATE DEFENDER
ORDER SETTING HEARING OVROM ELIZA 03/15/2004 03/16/2004 03/16/2004
Comments: ON MOTION TO REVIEW ACTION RE:PAYMENT OF
COURT APPOINTED ATTY.
3/29/04 8:15AM RM209A
MOTION 03/15/2004 03/16/2004 03/16/2004
Comments: FOR REVIEW OF ACTION REGARDING PAYMENT
OF COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY FEES
FILED BY ATDF
OTHER EVENT 03/11/2004 03/11/2004 03/11/2004
Comments: SUPREME COURT RECVD 2 TRANSCRIPTS OF SENTENCING
ON 1/16/04 AND STATUS CONF ON 12/12/03 FILED
3/1/04
04-202
OTHER EVENT 03/09/2004 03/09/2004 03/09/2004
Comments: 2 TRANSCRIPTS FILED 3/1/04 SENT TO THE
SUPREME COURT
INDIGENT DEFENSE CLAIM FORM TAYLOR KAREN 03/09/2004 03/18/2004
03/18/2004
Comments: $1350.00 ELECTRONIC FILING
DNU - COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT HILGENBERG VIVIAN ROSE 03/01/2004
03/03/2004 03/03/2004
Comments: OF STATUS CONFERENCE ON 12/12/2003
DNU - COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT HILGENBERG VIVIAN ROSE 03/01/2004
03/03/2004 03/03/2004
Comments: OF SENTENCING ON 01/16/2004
OTHER EVENT APPELLATE DEFENDER'S OFFICE 02/26/2004 02/27/2004
02/27/2004
Comments: COMBINED CERTIFICATE
OTHER EVENT 02/24/2004 02/24/2004 02/24/2004
Comments: DOCKET ENTRIES RECEIVED BY SUPREME COURT
2-10-04; SUPREME COURT NUMBER 04-202
ORDER APPOINTING OVROM ELIZA 02/18/2004 02/19/2004 02/19/2004
Comments: ORDER GRANTING K TAYLOR TO W/D
APPELLATE COUNSEL IS APPT
OTHER APPLICATION 02/18/2004 02/19/2004 02/19/2004
Comments: TO WITHDRAW
OTHER EVENT 02/10/2004 02/10/2004 02/10/2004
Comments: DOCKET ENTRIES AND CERTIFIED COPY OF NOTICE
OF APPEAL SENT TO THE SUPREME COURT
OTHER EVENT TAYLOR KAREN A 02/09/2004 02/10/2004 02/10/2004
Comments: COURT APPOINTED BILLING
47 HOURS = $2500
OTHER EVENT TAYLOR KAREN 02/09/2004 02/10/2004 02/10/2004
ENTERED IN ERROR
Comments: COURT
NOTICE OF APPEAL TAYLOR KAREN A 02/06/2004 02/09/2004 02/09/2004
Comments: FILED BY ATDF
OTHER EVENT 01/23/2004 01/27/2004 01/27/2004
Comments: ADDENDUM TO PSI REPORT
EXHIBIT MAXEY REBECCA 01/21/2004 01/21/2004 01/21/2004
Comments: STATE'S EXHIBITS
1-$13.21; 2-$24.25 (IN VAULT); 3-LIGHT;
4&5-WRITTEN STATEMENT; 6,7,8-DIAGRAM
1 ENVELOPE & VAULT
OTHER EVENT 01/20/2004 01/26/2004 01/26/2004
Comments: VORP
VICTIM DOES NOT WANT TO VORP
NO RESTITUTION ISSUES AT THIS TIME
VICTIM DENNIS AND JAMIE WIEBEN
COURT ORDERED PAYMENT PLAN 01/20/2004 01/20/2004 01/20/2004
COURT ORDERED PAYMENT PLAN 01/16/2004 01/16/2004 01/16/2004
COURT REPORTER CERTIFICATE HILGENBERG VIVIAN ROSE 01/16/2004
01/20/2004 01/20/2004
Comments: $15.00
PRE SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT PSI 01/16/2004 01/16/2004
01/16/2004
ORDER OF DISPOSITION OVROM ELIZA 01/16/2004 01/16/2004 01/16/2004
Comments: FOUND GUILTY BY JURY/PRISON-SUSPENDED; FORMAL
PROBATION; FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS;
COMMUNITY SERVED; RESTITUTION-SUPP ORDER TO
FOLLOW; VORP; APPEAL BOND $13000 C/S
ORDER OF DISPOSITION OVROM ELIZA 01/16/2004 01/16/2004
01/16/2004
ENTERED IN ERROR
Comments: PLED GUILTY/PRISON-SUSPENDED; FORMAL
PROBATION; FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS;
COMMUNITY SERVED; RESTITUTION-SUPP ORDER TO
FOLLOW; VORP; APPEAL BOND $13000 C/S
MITTIMUS TO STATE INSTITUTION WILLS KENT BRADLEY 01/16/2004
01/16/2004 01/16/2004
Comments: **FORT DES MOINES**
RETURN OF SERVICE - OTHER POLK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 12/23/2003
12/26/2003 12/26/2003
Comments: TRANSPORT COSTS $96.24
OTHER EVENT 12/22/2003 12/23/2003 12/23/2003
Comments: DEFT'S COPY OF ORDER TO EXCEED STATE FEE
LIMITATION RETURNED UNDELIVERABLE
COURT REPORTER CERTIFICATE MAXEY REBECCA 12/17/2003 12/18/2003
12/18/2003
CRIMINAL VERDICT HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/17/2003 12/18/2003 12/18/2003
Comments: OF GUILTY TO BURGLARY 2ND, 3RD, AND USING A
JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE OFFENSE; DCS
WILL SUBMIT A PSI BY 1 WK PRIOR TO SENTENCING
DATE; PRESENTENCE CONF & SENTENCING 1-16-04
@ 8:30 AM IN RM 209A; BOND CONT
AMENDED TRIAL INFORMATION HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/17/2003 12/18/2003
12/18/2003
Comments: FILED BY JOHN JUDISCH
JURY SELECTION HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/17/2003 12/18/2003 12/18/2003
INSTRUCTIONS 12/17/2003 12/18/2003 12/18/2003
Comments: TO THE JURY AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE
OTHER ORDER HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/16/2003 12/17/2003 12/17/2003
Comments: JUV SEAN BILYEU SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE
CUSTODY OF POLK CO SHERIFF FOR THE DURATION
OF HIS REQUIRED TESTIMONY/PRESENCE IN THIS
MATTER. SEAN BILYEU SHALL REMAIN IN THE
CUSTODY OF POLK CO SHERIFF OR ANY OTHER
LOCATION (MEYER HALL) DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY
THE SHERIFF UNTIL THE POLK CO SHERIFF CAN
EXECUTE THE TIMELY TRANSPORT OF SEAN BILYEU
FROM THE CUSTODY OF THE SHERIFF TO THE ELDORA
TRAINING CENTER.
OTHER ORDER HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/16/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003
Comments: DEFT TO BE RETURNED FROM ELDORA-COTTAGE 5
BY JIM TROTTER, INVESTIGATOR/CTY ATTY'S
OFFICE; DEFT CAN BE PRESENT AT HIS TESTIMONY
ON 12-16-03
OTHER ORDER HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/15/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003
Comments: ATDF IS PERMITTED TO EXCEED GUIDELINE FOR
CT APPT ATTY IN THIS MATTER AND THAT THIS
ORDER SHALL INCLUED ALL FEES INCURRED AS OF
THE DATE OF THIS ORDER.
APPLICATION TO EXCEED FEES 12/15/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003
COURT REPORTER CERTIFICATE HILGENBERG VIVIAN ROSE 12/12/2003
12/17/2003 12/17/2003
MOTION IN LIMINE TAYLOR KAREN 12/12/2003 12/15/2003 12/15/2003
ORDER SETTING HEARING OVROM ELIZA 12/05/2003 12/08/2003 12/08/2003
Comments: STATUS CONF: 12/12/03 @ 10:00 AM RM 204
RETURN OF SERVICE ON SUBPEONA 11/20/2003 12/09/2003 12/09/2003
Comments: 4=$0
RETURN OF SERVICE ON SUBPEONA 11/18/2003 11/25/2003 11/25/2003
Comments: 3=$0
ORDER SETTING HEARING OVROM ELIZA 11/14/2003 11/14/2003 11/14/2003
Comments: STATUS CONFERENCE
11/13/03 9AM RM 204
ALL PARTIES MUST BE PRESENT
ORDER SETTING TRIAL OVROM ELIZA 11/13/2003 11/14/2003 11/14/2003
Comments: 12/15/03 @ 9:00 AM RM 204
WAIVER OF SPEEDY TRIAL TAYLOR KAREN 11/13/2003 11/14/2003
11/14/2003
Comments: LIMITED
RETURN OF SERVICE ON SUBPEONA 11/10/2003 11/12/2003 11/12/2003
Comments: 1 = $0
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF DAVID DUVALL
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF BETH ANN SKOGEN
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF NEIL LEMKE
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF DENNIS WIEBEN
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF NATALIE BALUKOFF
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF SEAN BILYEU
RETURN OF SERVICE ON SUBPEONA 10/31/2003 11/04/2003 11/04/2003
Comments: 6=$0
AMENDED TRIAL INFORMATION OVROM ELIZA 10/31/2003 11/03/2003
11/03/2003
Comments: FILED BY JOHN JUDISCH
NOTICE WARD JAMES P 10/31/2003 11/03/2003 11/03/2003
Comments: OF ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
DNU - SUBPOENA PER DUCES TECUM 10/31/2003 11/03/2003 11/03/2003
Comments: 1 - $13.70
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: FOR DEPOSITIONS AND SERVICE
AT STATE EXPENSE
OTHER APPLICATION 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: FOR DEPOSITIONS AND SERVICE
AT STATE EXPENSE
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITION
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 10/07/2003 10/08/2003 10/08/2003
Comments: ORDER ENTERED 9/18/03 SETTING TRIAL FOR
11/19/03 WAS IS ERROR. TRIAL IS RESET FOR
11/12/03 @9:00 AM RM 204
OTHER EVENT 09/24/2003 09/26/2003 09/26/2003
Comments: DEFT'S COPY OF APP TO W/D
RETURNED UNDELIVERABLE
PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE OVROM ELIZA 09/18/2003 09/19/2003 09/19/2003
Comments: WAS HELD; TRIAL ON 11-19-03
ATDF TAYLOR
OTHER EVENT AMUNDSON LAURA K 08/26/2003 09/02/2003 09/02/2003
Comments: STATEMENT OF HOURS
.4-$18.00
APPEARANCE TAYLOR KAREN 08/25/2003 08/26/2003 08/26/2003
Comments: FILED BY KAREN TAYLOR
WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL OVROM ELIZA 08/21/2003 08/22/2003 08/22/2003
Comments: OF ADULT PUBLIC DEF IS GRANTED
KAREN TAYLOR IS APPOINTED
ORDER OF ARRAIGNMENT MCGHEE ODELL 08/21/2003 08/21/2003 08/21/2003
Comments: Pretrial Conference 09/18/2003 01:30 PM DCC1
Trial 10/22/2003 09:00 AM DCC9
Bond is continued
TRIAL INFORMATION OVROM ELIZA 08/20/2003 08/20/2003 08/20/2003
Comments: FILED BY JAMES WARD
ORDER FOR ARRAIGNMENT MCGHEE ODELL 08/14/2003 08/14/2003
08/14/2003
Comments: IN CUSTODY ON 8/21/03 AT 10:30AM JAILCOURT
OUT OF CUSTODY AT 8AM ROOM 204
PRELIM HAS NOT BEEN WAIVED SET FOR 8/22/03
DNU - HEARING FOR BOND REDUCTION MCGHEE ODELL 08/14/2003 08/14/2003
08/14/2003
Comments: BOND $13000 C/S
APP FOR COUNSEL/FINANCIAL STATMENT MCGHEE ODELL 08/13/2003
08/13/2003 08/13/2003
Comments: APPROVED
PD IS APPOINTED
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 08/13/2003 08/13/2003 08/13/2003
Comments: BURGLARY 2ND
ANPD 03-75354
HEARING FOR INITIAL APPEARANCE MCGHEE ODELL 08/13/2003 08/13/2003
08/13/2003
Comments: Preliminary Hearing 08/22/2003 08:00 AM DA03
Bond Review 08/14/2003 08:30 AM DA04
Bond set for 713.5 $13000 C/S
Total Bond $13000 C/S
Indexed PUBLIC DEFENDER-POLK COUNTYPIN-
PK1000375
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
Citation Number:
Orig Paid Due Summary
3501.70 3501.70 0.00 COSTS
0.00 0.00 0.00 FINE
125.00 125.00 0.00 SURCHARGE
0.00 0.00 0.00 RESTITUTION
27.50 27.50 0.00 OTHER
-------------------------------------
$3654.20 $3654.20 $0.00
WILLS, KENT B [ Collected Sept 13, 2009]
Age: 40
Rogers, AR
Ankeny, IA
Marshalltown, IA
Bartlett, IL
Villa Park, IL
And from another source: Hanover Park, IL
WILLS, FREDERICK ALFRED (Kent's Dad 65 )
WILLS, MICHAEL A (Kent's son ??)
WILLS, JANET RAE (Kent's Mom 62 )
HARTWIG,TIFFANY JEANNE (Wills) (Kent's sister )
From another source: Kelly M Wills Kent's wife ?? )
( Samantha T Wills, Kathleen M Wills, James Wills ? )
-----------------------------------
Consider the following:
If "our" Kent is NOT Kent Bradley Wills then
his ""Fake ID"" has worked well, so what's
the problem?
Consider Kent's OWN comments about:
A. regarding his sister (by name)
B. property in CORPORATION name (Wills Family Trust)
C. footage of "Wills" plaque avoiding first name
D. apt building at 202 NW College Ave Ankeny IA
E. past residence in various cities in IA
F. connection to Arkansas
G. that he set up/was assigned this ""Fake ID""
Does an actual Garage Burglary Felon have a
RIGHT to con people into thinking he ISN'T one?
Does a TWO time thieving Felon actually have
a right to conceal his record and a right
against having his record exposed?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.bob-larson/msg/b9653f6758b592b8
Newsgroups: alt.fan.bob-larson, alt.law-enforcement, alt.usenet.kooks
From: Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com>
Local: Wed, Oct 15 2008 5:59 pm
> and running to Arkansas ain't gonna help you this time, Kent --
KBW > I've never run to Arkansas.
KBW > We have a house near Fort Smith, AR.
KBW > I'm confident your stalking has found
KBW > just where it is. You were able to
KBW > find my phone number from when I
KBW > lived in Chicago (you posted part
KBW > of it) back in 1988, so finding a
KBW > current address should have been
KBW > real easy for you.
2006 Assets Learning Conference Session III.8
Understanding the New Bankruptcy and Credit Laws:
Implications for the Field
Facilitated for the Assets Alliance by:
Janet Wills
Wills Resources
8250 Wills Court
Rogers, AR 72756
Phone & Fax Number: (479) 925-4001
E-mail: janetw...@yahoo.com
Ramona McKinney
Asset Builders Program Director
Southern Good Faith Fund
2304 West 29th Avenue
Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71603
Phone Number: (870) 535-6233, ext. 15
E-mail: rmck...@southerngff.org
History of Bankruptcy
Roots of word traced to medieval Italy – “banco rotto” which means
broken bench
Early U. S. bankruptcy law was modification of British law
1800’s – First federal bankruptcy law signed by President John Adams
in 1800 2 more laws passed and repealed until the Bankruptcy Act of
1898
1900’s and Beyond
A bankruptcy environment that had as its focus helping debtors seek a
new start remained in place for most of 20th century.
By beginning of 21st century creditors successfully argued that this
current law and environment were too easy on debtors
BAPCPA
The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005
was passed and went into effect October 19, 2005
Interruption in our presentation
There is a blank page in the back of your packet. As we are talking
today about bankruptcy and credit, please use it to jot down some of
your thoughts on how this new bankruptcy environment is going to
impact you and the people you serve.
Specifically write yourself a note or two about at least one
bankruptcy proceeding you know about personally. Then in 20 words or
less state what you think the contributing cause was for that person’s
financial problems.
We will want to hear your thoughts later.
Types of Bankruptcy
Chapter 7
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapter 7
For personal bankruptcy
Often referred to is liquidation bankruptcy
Debtors turn over nonessential assets to bankruptcy trustee, who then
sells it off and distributes proceeds to creditors eliminating debt
completely
This type of bankruptcy was most affected by the BAOCPA
Chapter 11
For corporations that want to reorganize their finances and remain in
business
Features a debt repayment plan
Chapter 12
For family farmers and fishermen
Features payment plan and debt restructuring
Chapter 13
For individuals
Features debt repayment plan
More individuals who previously would have filed under Chapter 7 will
be forced into Chapter 13
Changes with the BAPCPA
Means test
Required Credit Counseling
Required Debtor Education
Means Test
To qualify for Chapter 7 “liquidation bankruptcy” individual must pass
means test
Income must be below state’s median income
Or if it is above, debtor is subject to means test
Monthly income less allowed expenses
If after all these subtractions the total monthly disposable income is
less than $100 the debtor has passed the Means Test
Means Test cont.
If disposable income is more than $166.67 Means test is flunked and
debtor is not eligible for Chapter 7, must go to Chapter 13
If disposable income is between $100 and $166.67 then calculations are
figured to see if what is left over is enough to pay off more than 25%
of unsecured debt over 5 years.
In other words – the means test is not easy.
Required Credit Counseling
Debtors filing for Chapter 7 must complete required credit counseling
& debtors must pay for it.* Credit Counseling must be provided by a
qualifying 501(c)3 organization that has been approved by Bankruptcy
Trustees.
*fee can be waived
Debtor Education
2 hours required
Required topics
Budget Development
Setting short-term & long-term financial goals as well as developing
skills to assist in achieving these goals
Calculating gross monthly income & net monthly income
Identifying & classifying monthly expenses as fixed, variable, or
periodic
Debtor Education
Required topics cont
Money Management
Keeping adequate financial records
Developing decision-making skills required to distinguish between
wants and needs and to comparison shop for goods & services
Maintaining appropriate levels of insurance coverage, taking into
account the types and costs of insurance
Saving for emergences, for periodic payments, and for financial goals
Debtor education
required topics cont.
Wise Use of Credit
Types sources, and costs of credit & loans
Identifying debt warning signs
Appropriate use of credit & alternatives to credit use
Checking a credit rating
Debtor Education
required topics cont.
Consumer information
Public and non-profit resources for consumer assistance
Applicable consumer protection laws and regulations, such as those
governing correction of a credit record and protection against
consumer fraud
Approved credit counseling and debtor education can be provided
In person
Internet
Telephone
(can be approved for a combination of internet/telephone. That is the
approval we have)
www.usdoj.gov/ust/
The U. S. Trustees home page
A Huge wealth of information
www.usdoj.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/ccde/cc_approved.htm#AL
Web site (part of the trustee web site) for list of approved credit
counselors and debtor education providers
Click on state
Click on your judicial district
Bankruptcy and the Future
At first it’s a relief – you file for bankruptcy, the creditors stop
calling and harassing you, and the juggling act ends.
Many people who file bankruptcy ask, “Now what can I expect?”
Let’s begin looking at “what’s next” by completing the quiz.
Bankruptcy will expire from your credit report after 10 years.
Some credit reporting agencies may remove Chapter 13 after 7 years.
Bankruptcy is for life – if you apply for insurance, credit, or a job
you can be asked if you have ever filed for bankruptcy. There is no
time limit even if it is very old.
Bankruptcy will stay with me forever: True.
2. The accounts included in my bankruptcy will be removed from my
credit report upon discharge: False.
Accounts included in bankruptcy expire independently from bankruptcy.
These accounts will be marked “Included in BK” on the credit report.
They will remain up to 7 years after filing.
After discharge the balance must be reported as “0.”
I will never get credit again: False.
You can expect receive many offers of credit.
Many of these may be from unscrupulous creditors with activation fees
and/or membership fees.
There are “debtor-friendly” agencies that specialize in credit repair
loans.
Do not be too eager to get credit again – know the terms and
conditions of the credit.
I will not be able to by a home for 10 years: False.
There are some lenders who prefer to deal with consumers with good
credit and will not do business for the 10 years it remains.
It is not a quick fix, it may take those in Chapter 13 three to five
years to complete their payment plan.
With strides to rebuild credit and no new negative “marks,” you may be
able to receive a conventional mortgage within one to two years.
Even after bankruptcy I may still have some of my existing debt:
True.
Even with Chapter 7 not all debt will be discharged, it depends on the
type of debts that are owed.
Certain debts that cannot be discharged include: most taxes, child
support, most student loans, court fines and criminal restitution, and
personal injury.
Debts incurred after filing for bankruptcy will not be included.
I will lose all my property if I file for bankruptcy: False.
With Chapter 13, which is like a payment plan, you may be allowed to
keep property.
Chapter 7 involves the sale of all assets that are not exempt.
Exemptions differ from state to state but typically allow: equity in
home, insurance, retirement plans, personal property, car, public
benefits, and/or tools used on job.
Filing for bankruptcy will lower my credit score: True.
The drop in the credit score will depend on the type of debt and
payment history prior to filing.
Credit score is calculated using a complicated algorithm that takes
into account hundreds of factors and values.
It is very difficult to predict how the credit score will be affected
but bankruptcy is one of the most negative factors included in the
report.
I cannot file for bankruptcy for 8 years after discharge: True.
This is only true for Chapter 7.
Chapter 13 waiting period is shorter and can be as little as two
years.
After bankruptcy all my debts will be free and clear and I will have
peace of mind: False.
As stated in #5 all debts will not be discharged.
Bankruptcy is listed in the top five life-altering negative events
that one can go through.
Bankruptcy is life-altering and leaves deep wounds both to the psyche
and the credit report.
After bankruptcy I will need to take steps to protect myself from
another bankruptcy: True.
Even if the bankruptcy was through no fault of your own it will be a
good time to examine what led to bankruptcy to begin to prepare for
unforeseen events.
Take a critical look at spending and saving habits.
Implement strategies to control spending, develop a budget, and start
a savings plan.
Let’s Talk About It
Implications to the IDA field
The “typical” person seeking bankruptcy
Contributing causes
Kent Wills
wrote:
>X > And the idiot once again posts something
>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>
>G > So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
>G > know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>
>KBW > Fair use allows you to copy portions for
>KBW > discussion. It does not allow for the
>KBW > copying of the entire work.
>
>KBW > I've explained this to you in the past.
>
>Got a LINK to where you ""explained"" this in the past?
Yes. As soon as you make available the picture of David dressed as
a Nazi and me on a pony, or admit you've lied about the existence of
both all along, I'll post numerous links.
FYI: Double quotation marks (quadruple if you use British
grammar) still means nothing. I even asked an English as a Second
Language teacher, just as you suggested. Double quotation marks mean
nothing at all.
>
>KBW > I even cited where in copyright law you
>KBW > will find this.
>
>All the better for you to LINK to same!
As soon as you make available the picture of David dressed as a
Nazi and me on a pony, or admit you've lied about the existence of
both all along, I'll post numerous links.
As you are well aware, this has been the requirement for a long
time. Once again you try to present that you don't know this.
If your NEED to continue to prove you're admitted use and abuse
of illegal drugs makes honesty IMPOSSIBLE for you, except by accident
or force, please do so. Your dishonest presentation that you don't
know the requirement has done me no harm to date. There's no reason
to expect it will in the future.
>
>KBW > Yes, you think you're exempt from all
>KBW > criminal and civil law. Your record, in
>KBW > addition to your current actions, proves this.
>
>See further below regarding your record.
You've already admitted that the information you post isn't about
me. You claimed it was about the other Kent Wills, though you've yet
to state which of the many people in the world with the name Kent
Wills it's supposed to be.
Whereas you've made it clear the information isn't about me
(unless you lied when you claimed it isn't), I have to wonder just why
you are still compelled to present it as if it is.
>
>Kent, Please tell me what you THINK you know about
>the FAIR USE exception to copyright law.
>
>Please describe what the background and
>INTENTION of the FAIR USE exception is.
It allows one to quote portions for discussion, critical review
and citing.
You already know this, since I went into detail in the past.
What is the SPECIFIC reason you're acting like you don't already
know it?
>
>Is this going to be another game where you
>make strong claims and then when proven
>wrong you blame the statements onto OTHERS?
You see copyright law as a game. OK.
>
>Like when you claimed Kim is a male?
I know a Kim who is certain he's male. I've not actually done a
DNA test on him, so it's possible he's really a she.
Are you claiming he's not? If so, please offer the evidence you
have that lead to such a conclusion.
To save you some time, I know a man named Ashley as well. Again,
I've not had a DNA test done, but his full beard leads me to accept
he's male.
>
>Please make it clear what parts you personally
>BELIEVE and what parts you think you
>can weasel out of and blame onto other
>people you are parroting.
Could you rewrite that in coherent English?
>
>I am still fairly amused that some anonymous
>schmuck thought he had PROVED Glen
>had been convicted using only proof that
>Glen had been INDICTED.
What does Glen have to do with copyright law? Are you so scared
of the truth that you MUST divert attention away from it? Or are you
once again offering undeniable PROOF that you're obsessed with a man
you've never met on-line or in real life?
>
>You DO know that indictment is NOT conviction, right?
Have I ever claimed it is?
>
>Do you think Moe does, and her idiot anonymous ""helper""?
>
As I asked in another thread, has she ever claimed, directly or
through implication, that she does?
I note you RAN from my question. You do that a lot when you're
proved to be the liar you are.
>Can you find any more on 43481-061 or Glen Frohman?
>
Yes, if motivated to do so.
>Was that YOU who posted the anonymous idiocy, Kent?
>
No.
>You seem to exhibit some subtle sort of ownership
>of the hollow argument on Copyright v FAIR USE.
>
Your use and abuse of illegal drugs may cause you to see claims
of ownership where none exist, but that's your issue to address.
[snip of Greg's admitting I'm correct]
It's accepted that when I'm correct and you can no longer lie
your way out of it, you post that which you KNOW isn't about me.
You've already admitted, freely, that the information you post
isn't about me but some other person who is named Kent Wills. Are you
so stoned that you think anyone is buying it now?
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, or proving he's so
stupid he thinks I'm Asian.
MID:<c6bac3f6-7a0e-4bf8-8ddd-d77bccfc6...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/395db830731df54a
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
triumphantly.
--a true story
Kent Wills
wrote:
Are you so drunk you think TV and print are the same thing? You
must be.
>
>http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=betamaxcase
>
>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417
>
>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technology/articles/groksterprimer_033805.htm
>
>
>Now what IDIOTIC comeback can we expect from our resident IDIOT POLACK????
>
None. Since I consistently PROVE I'm your intellectual superior,
nothing I post could be seen as idiotic.
Oh wait, you're intense bigotry always overrides any common sense
you may have. My bad.
"Maybe he's like me to attach some kiddie porn to aid his fantasies"
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-Team, expressing
his fondness for child porn in
Message-ID:
<RECUi.494$Q%3.238@trnddc04>
krp
Hey IMBECILLE try READING sometime.YOU FUKKKKKING MORON!
>>http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=betamaxcase
>>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technology/articles/groksterprimer_033805.htm
>>Now what IDIOTIC comeback can we expect from our resident IDIOT POLACK????
> None. Since I consistently PROVE I'm your intellectual superior,
> nothing I post could be seen as idiotic.
I see you SNIPPED some of the links I provided. In your POLACK
reasoning, you seem to believe that this PROVES some point. Such as your
POLACK claim that it has NO relevance to printed materials. In the finding
of the Supremes you might see it applies to ALL media. Something a STUPID
POLACK can't reason. The FAIR USE DOCTRINE applies to *.*! As do its
exceptions, such as reproducing a work and claiming it as your own, or in
trying to commercially exploit the work, such as selling copies. Other than
that, with proper attribution one can quote part or ALL of an article to
educate or to make a point. The STUPID argument you are TRYING to make,
Polack, is one that IDIOTS on Usenet have tried to make for years and in the
end they all get humiliated. READ up on the issue.
Kent Wills
CONsulting, "Kenneth Robert 'legally insane alcoholic'[1] Pangborn"
<kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>SUPREME COURT OVERSEER ATTORNEY KUNT WILLS
You need to get into rehab, Pangborn. Your alcoholism, the same
alcoholism you claimed caused you to be found legally insane, is once
again compelling you to claim something about me that you KNOW is not
true.
I read often. Unlike you, I'm not drunk, so I am able to focus on
letters and words.
>
>>>http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=betamaxcase
People have the right to record programs at home for private use.
Is that what you believe Greg did when he posted an entire
article?
What principle of Fair Use do you believe he was operating under
when he did that? He is claiming that "fair use" covers copy and
pasting an entire, complete piece of another's work.
Surely you, with your vast experience with law in your practice
of trail CONsulting and advising suckers, sorry, clients on legal
matters, would easily recognize the Fair Use principle Greg likely
thinks exempts him from copyright law. What is it? And how would it
apply to posting an entire piece of work to a Usenet newsgroup?
Proving that people can video tape TV shows for private use at
home doesn't cover what Greg did.
>
>>>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417
From the site:
"The record and the District Court's findings show (1) that there is a
significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders
who license their works for broadcast on free television would not
object to having their broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i.
e., recorded at a time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so
that it can be watched at a later time); and (2) that there is no
likelihood that time-shifting would cause nonminimal harm to the
potential market for, or the value of, respondents' copyrighted works.
The VTR's are therefore capable of substantial noninfringing uses."
If Greg has video taped the article for his own private home use,
you might be able to make the drunken argument you present. As it
stands, you've once again PROVED you know NOTHING about matters of
law.
This is not meant to imply I'm an expert, although your
alcoholism will force you to claim I am. I'm simply willing and able
to research applicable law whereas you whine and cry and have MASSIVE
on-line tantrums.
>
>>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technology/articles/groksterprimer_033805.htm
>
How does Grokster not being held responsible for what its users
do apply to what Greg did?
You might want to sleep off your latest bender before you answer.
You ALWAYS get made to look the fool you are when you post while
drunk. The post to which I'm replying stands as proof of that.
Maybe you should have read what was to be found.
From the Washington Post article:
"If the Supreme Court upholds the previous rulings..."
*IF* the Supreme Court. Note the word if.
Not that it matters. The ruling would only effect if Google and
Greg's ISP could be held responsible for his willful violation of
copyright law.
FYI: The ruling was they can't. Only Greg can be held
responsible for his willful violation of copyright law.
Isn't it time for you to whine about how it's my civic duty to
turn him in? It's one of your lesser used tells that you've lost, but
it would fit this time. You can try to distract from the truth that
Greg willfully violated copyright law by whining about my civic duty.
>>>Now what IDIOTIC comeback can we expect from our resident IDIOT POLACK????
>
>> None. Since I consistently PROVE I'm your intellectual superior,
>> nothing I post could be seen as idiotic.
>
> I see you SNIPPED some of the links I provided.
If the alcoholism you claimed caused you to be found legally
insane is going to compel you to lie, and it is, be sure to have it
compel you to lie about that which can't be proved.
Anyone with an interest may check your post by visiting:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.atheism/msg/5fff5f65acbe374b
What links did I snip? Be specific.
If you'd rather admit your alcoholism has once again forced you to
lie, feel free to disregard my question.
>In your POLACK
That you're a bigot is very old news. A very small sample of the
established PROOF that you HATE any and all minorities, said proof
consisting of your own writings, can be found at
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>reasoning, you seem to believe that this PROVES some point. Such as your
>POLACK claim that it has NO relevance to printed materials.
I made no such claim. If you weren't so drunk, you would
understand what I wrote. However, I will make the claim now.
One being allowed to video tape TV shows for private home use has
no relevance to printed materials.
An Internet service not being held responsible for its user's
actions has no relevance to printed materials.
Feel free to prove me wrong, unless, of course, I'm correct.
>In the finding
>of the Supremes you might see it applies to ALL media. Something a STUPID
>POLACK can't reason.
You've proved, again, your so drunk when you're on-line, you
can't understand simple English.
>The FAIR USE DOCTRINE applies to *.*! As do its
>exceptions, such as reproducing a work and claiming it as your own, or in
>trying to commercially exploit the work, such as selling copies.
I don't recommend you do either. However, the choice is
ultimately yours to make.
>Other than
>that, with proper attribution one can quote part or ALL of an article to
>educate or to make a point.
That's not what copyright law states.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/
That's current copyright law, not case law from the 70's and
80's. Current law. It shows how Greg violated copyright law. But
then, he believes he is exempt from any and all laws of any sort, as
his criminal and civil history, in addition to current activities,
proves.
RUN from this Pangborn. Run as fast as your little scooter will
take you (I know, you won't really be running, but I hope you get my
meaning). You really have no other choice. I've once again PROVED
that you're INCOMPETENT in matters of law. You know less about the
topic of law than, well, anyone, except perhaps Richard the St00pid.
Given how often you proudly display your ignorance of such simple
concepts as copyright law, it's no wonder your CONsulting business is
in the tank. You've gone out of your way to show why no one should
ever hire you for anything related to legal matters.
I used to think it was David's TRUTH site
(http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com) that was the cause. While I'm sure
it had and has its effect, your proving, almost daily, that you're
extremely incompetent probably did far more damage.
>The STUPID argument you are TRYING to make,
>Polack, is one that IDIOTS on Usenet have tried to make for years and in the
>end they all get humiliated. READ up on the issue.
>
Are you aware of what is and is not allowed under current
copyright law?
If you're too drunk to understand, feel free to RUN from the
question.
"CPS cases are legal matters. Offering advice IS practicing law
without a license."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn admitting he practices law without a
license in misc.legal
[1] According to his own claims.
krp
>>SUPREME COURT OVERSEER ATTORNEY KUNT WILLS
> You need to get into rehab, Pangborn. Your alcoholism, the same
> alcoholism you claimed caused you to be found legally insane, is once
> again compelling you to claim something about me that you KNOW is not
> true.
You tend to think of yourself as a GREAT LEGAL EXPERT, Wills. You get more
than a little overbearing on what you *THINK* you know. (But really DON';T!)
Your reading is always with almost NO comprehensionand I make allowances
that English is NOT your primary language. You also have a nasty habit of
SELECTIVE reading and the ability to grasp anything wider than your own
nose. Which I grant you is an extreme venue, BUT hardly the point.
>>>>http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=betamaxcase
> People have the right to record programs at home for private use.
> Is that what you believe Greg did when he posted an entire
> article?
Kunt theBetamax case was a case ENTIRELY based on the 'FAIR USE
DOCTRINE." In feel for your Polack LACK of ability to grasp the significance
of that and apply it as broadly as the Supreme Court said it applies. YOU
"overruled" them becaus e in your tiny little POLACK mind the case was about
video recording and NOTHING ELSE. Again you obviously did NOT read the
decision.
> What principle of Fair Use do you believe he was operating under
> when he did that? He is claiming that "fair use" covers copy and
> pasting an entire, complete piece of another's work.
Kunt it is fair use to quote an article either in part or whole if your
purpose is to educate and not do the two forbidden things. a. Claim it as
your own. or b. Make copies to sell.
> Surely you, with your vast experience with law in your practice
> of trail CONsulting and advising suckers, sorry, clients on legal
> matters, would easily recognize the Fair Use principle Greg likely
> thinks exempts him from copyright law. What is it? And how would it
> apply to posting an entire piece of work to a Usenet newsgroup?
> Proving that people can video tape TV shows for private use at
> home doesn't cover what Greg did.
As long as proper attribution was given and it wasn't being done for
profit, the Fair Use Doctrine prvides for it. Somebody the other day pointed
out the copyright notices in newpapers etc. They are very much like the FBI
warnings we see on DVD's. EVERYONE knows (except YOU, Kunt) that those
"warnings" are a joke. So much so that even Hollywood has made fun of them.
There was a sketch in the ultimate spoof movie, "Amazon Women on the Moon"
called "Video pirates." It had a bunch of men dressed as pirates on a ship.
The guy took out a video tape and read the FBI WARNING, and he looked at his
mates and said; "We're SOOOOOOOOO SKKKKARED!"
Kunt there is no problem with long quotes, again so long as you stay
inside the rules. You can't say it's your work and you can't sell it.
>>>>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417
> From the site:
> "The record and the District Court's findings show (1) that there is a
> significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders
> who license their works for broadcast on free television would not
> object to having their broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i.
> e., recorded at a time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so
> that it can be watched at a later time); and (2) that there is no
> likelihood that time-shifting would cause nonminimal harm to the
> potential market for, or the value of, respondents' copyrighted works.
> The VTR's are therefore capable of substantial noninfringing uses."
>
> If Greg has video taped the article for his own private home use,
> you might be able to make the drunken argument you present. As it
> stands, you've once again PROVED you know NOTHING about matters of
> law.
Don't look new, Kunt but you just missed the POINT AGAIN. Every day you
PROVE that you ARE a "stupid Polack!"
> This is not meant to imply I'm an expert, although your
> alcoholism will force you to claim I am. I'm simply willing and able
> to research applicable law whereas you whine and cry and have MASSIVE
> on-line tantrums.
Your reading comprehension of conversational Eglish is marginal at best,
Kunt. Your understanding of LEGAL language is near ZERO, even though you
THINK you are a legal whiz. I'd have thought the dismal failure of your
appealate brief in your own case would ahve taught you that understanding
legal issues is NOT your strong suit.
Greegor
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
1. GLEN FROHMAN 43481-061 49-White-M 02-23-2004 RELEASED
Even THIS does not prove WHAT Glen was convicted of.
It does NOT state sentence, only an exit date.
You DO know the difference between
INDICTMENT and CONVICTION, don't you, Kent?
Were you the anonymous idiot who confused them?
Do you have any explanation for Maureen's LINK
which was apparently broken WHEN IT WAS POSTED?
Why would Moe post a very broken link and
claim that it proved Glen was convicted?
Did you think it ever actually worked with an
http prefix buried in the middle of the link
and the word servlet chopped off?
Kent Wills
wrote:
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:d41df5p753rv2pk8n...@4ax.com...
>>>SUPREME COURT OVERSEER ATTORNEY KUNT WILLS
>
>> You need to get into rehab, Pangborn. Your alcoholism, the same
>> alcoholism you claimed caused you to be found legally insane, is once
>> again compelling you to claim something about me that you KNOW is not
>> true.
>
>You tend to think of yourself as a GREAT LEGAL EXPERT, Wills.
I've done no such thing.
When compared to your extreme lack of knowledge in matters of
law, I might be seen as an expert. However, when compared to people
who have actually studied law, I am not.
>You get more
>than a little overbearing on what you *THINK* you know. (But really DON';T!)
I consistently PROVE I know more than you. If that means I'm an
expert in your drunken mind, so be it.
It is, though. It's not my first language, but I speak, read and
write it far more often than any other.
>You also have a nasty habit of
>SELECTIVE reading and the ability to grasp anything wider than your own
>nose. Which I grant you is an extreme venue, BUT hardly the point.
I am able to read the entire piece of work. Further, I can
understand the context.
As I have managed to PROVE, you are incapable.
Now have your little tantrum, further proving me correct.
>
>>>>>http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=betamaxcase
>
>> People have the right to record programs at home for private use.
>> Is that what you believe Greg did when he posted an entire
>> article?
>
> Kunt theBetamax case was a case ENTIRELY based on the 'FAIR USE
>DOCTRINE."
As it applies to recording TV shows under then current copyright
law.
>In feel for your Polack LACK of ability to grasp the significance
>of that and apply it as broadly as the Supreme Court said it applies. YOU
>"overruled" them becaus e in your tiny little POLACK mind the case was about
>video recording and NOTHING ELSE. Again you obviously did NOT read the
>decision.
SCOTUS stated it was about recording. Outside of your drunken
stupors, I've not overruled anything. Further, outside of your latest
PROOF that you post while drunk, I couldn't overrule SCOTUS even if I
were motivated to do so.
>
>> What principle of Fair Use do you believe he was operating under
>> when he did that? He is claiming that "fair use" covers copy and
>> pasting an entire, complete piece of another's work.
>
> Kunt it is fair use to quote an article either in part or whole if your
>purpose is to educate and not do the two forbidden things. a. Claim it as
>your own. or b. Make copies to sell.
That's not what the law says, as I've already proved.
So powerful was and is the proof, you had to remove it from your
reply, admitting I'm correct (by the standards of Gregborn Logic�) by
doing so.
>
>> Surely you, with your vast experience with law in your practice
>> of trail CONsulting and advising suckers, sorry, clients on legal
>> matters, would easily recognize the Fair Use principle Greg likely
>> thinks exempts him from copyright law. What is it? And how would it
>> apply to posting an entire piece of work to a Usenet newsgroup?
>> Proving that people can video tape TV shows for private use at
>> home doesn't cover what Greg did.
>
> As long as proper attribution was given and it wasn't being done for
>profit, the Fair Use Doctrine prvides for it. Somebody the other day pointed
>out the copyright notices in newpapers etc. They are very much like the FBI
>warnings we see on DVD's. EVERYONE knows (except YOU, Kunt) that those
>"warnings" are a joke. So much so that even Hollywood has made fun of them.
>There was a sketch in the ultimate spoof movie, "Amazon Women on the Moon"
>called "Video pirates." It had a bunch of men dressed as pirates on a ship.
>The guy took out a video tape and read the FBI WARNING, and he looked at his
>mates and said; "We're SOOOOOOOOO SKKKKARED!"
I have the film. It's funny.
I like how the video disk wouldn't work on the guy's system. That
was a major problem with video disks, IMO.
>
> Kunt there is no problem with long quotes, again so long as you stay
>inside the rules. You can't say it's your work and you can't sell it.
Long quotes may be acceptable. There's no absolute limit on the
length of a quote. However no one, other than you are Greg, see C&P
of the entire work as acceptable.
>
>>>>>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417
>
>> From the site:
>
>> "The record and the District Court's findings show (1) that there is a
>> significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders
>> who license their works for broadcast on free television would not
>> object to having their broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i.
>> e., recorded at a time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so
>> that it can be watched at a later time); and (2) that there is no
>> likelihood that time-shifting would cause nonminimal harm to the
>> potential market for, or the value of, respondents' copyrighted works.
>> The VTR's are therefore capable of substantial noninfringing uses."
>>
>> If Greg has video taped the article for his own private home use,
>> you might be able to make the drunken argument you present. As it
>> stands, you've once again PROVED you know NOTHING about matters of
>> law.
>
> Don't look new,
At my age, there's no way I could. :)
>Kunt but you just missed the POINT AGAIN. Every day you
>PROVE that you ARE a "stupid Polack!"
I not only saw the point, I used it to prove you the drunken liar
you are.
>
>> This is not meant to imply I'm an expert, although your
>> alcoholism will force you to claim I am. I'm simply willing and able
>> to research applicable law whereas you whine and cry and have MASSIVE
>> on-line tantrums.
>
> Your reading comprehension of conversational Eglish is marginal at best,
Given that it's far better than yours, that's a frightening claim
you're making.
>Kunt. Your understanding of LEGAL language is near ZERO,
Yet it's still superior to yours, as I have once again proved.
>even though you
>THINK you are a legal whiz.
When compared to you, perhaps I am. Even so, I don't hold out
that I am.
>I'd have thought the dismal failure of your
>appealate brief in your own case would ahve taught you that understanding
>legal issues is NOT your strong suit.
>
Whereas I've not had cause to file, let alone present, an appeal,
your latest lie fails.
Thank you for admitting, by Gregborn Logic� standards and
default, that your alcoholism once again forced you to lie. I'll be
sure to point this out from time to time.
Thank you for admitting, under the standards of Gregborn Logic�,
that you were, and are, too drunk to understand. I'll be sure to
point out your admission from time to time.
"I am insane!"
--Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-team,
posting to alt.dads-rights.unmoderated claiming that he was found
legally insane.
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>> =A0 =A0 Your reading comprehension of conversational Eglish is marginal a=
>t best,
>> Kunt. Your understanding of LEGAL language is near ZERO, even though you
>> THINK you are a legal whiz. I'd have thought the dismal failure of your
>> appealate brief in your own case would ahve taught you that understanding
>> legal issues is NOT your strong suit.
>
>http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=3DNameSearch&needi=
>ngMoreList=3Dfalse&FirstName=3DGlen&Middle=3D&LastName=3DFrohman&Race=3DU&S=
>ex=3DU&Age=3D&x=3D70&y=3D15
>
>1. GLEN FROHMAN 43481-061 49-White-M 02-23-2004 RELEASED
>
>Even THIS does not prove WHAT Glen was convicted of.
No one has claimed it does. Only that, in direct contrast to the
claims you've presented via implication, he was convicted.
One can infer that he was convicted of the crimes for which he
was investigated, but that's not an absolute guaranty.
>It does NOT state sentence, only an exit date.
How many people do you know that are listed in a Federal
Bureau of Prisons' locator list, with or without an exit date, that
were not convicted?
I do hope you realize you've totaly destroyed your own implied
claim that Glen wasn't convicted.
It's always nice when YOU offer the proof that you were wrong.
Will you be able to admit your error, or prove, once again, that by
your own standards, you knew the truth and were lying all along?
>
>You DO know the difference between
>INDICTMENT and CONVICTION, don't you, Kent?
Ken and I are two different people. You replied to his post.
Your latest proof that you have Fregoli (I'm being kind and
presuming it's not proof that your admitted use and abuse of illegal
drugs has made honesty IMPOSSIBLE for you, except by accident or
force) aside, yes. Just like the last two times you've asked.
You've yet to answer a question I've asked several times.
Why are you so obsessed about a man you've never met on-line or
in real life?
Why were you so compelled to bring his name into the discussion?
Until you mentioned him, I was unaware he exists. Moe had never
mentioned him in any post I read until YOU brought up his name.
>
>Were you the anonymous idiot who confused them?
Just like the last two times you asked, no.
Are you the idiot that wants to claim that Frohman's conviction
is non-existent and that it was not for the very crimes listed in the
investigation, where the evidence is presented? (hint: Yes, you are.)
>
>Do you have any explanation for Maureen's LINK
>which was apparently broken WHEN IT WAS POSTED?
Do you know ANYTHING at all about the Web, Web pages, or
the Internet in general? Anything at all?
Have you ever used "Frontpage?" It's a WYSIWYG automated web page
editor. It was crap when it was written, and it's descendents are
still crap, and can do things to html formatting you would not believe
unless you saw it.
Ever done a C&P of a piece (LOL) and picked up stray characters,
words, numbers, even a graphic or two, in your blocking, only to have
to edit them out when you past? Is it possible you might have missed
characters that needed removing?
I'll save you some time. Yes.
That you do so, frequently, seems acceptable to you, but if
someone else does it, well, that's horrible.
How do you rationalize this, Greg? Please answer, unless honesty
is just too difficult for you.
>
>Why would Moe post a very broken link and
>claim that it proved Glen was convicted?
With it you, or more plausibly someone else, was able to find the
information. You whine about it above.
>
>Did you think it ever actually worked with an
>http prefix buried in the middle of the link
>and the word servlet chopped off?
Are you going to claim that the characters h, t, t, and p, if
used in a string of characters that make up the number substitute URL
will negate the address?
Please show your evidence of this, using pie charts as necessary.
"http" as characters, even if presented in an URL (which is NOT
the real address at all; that being made up of a string of numbers)
without the "://" as part of "http://" will have zero effect on the
address accessibility. How often do you simply enter www. at the
start of a URL?
On the other hand, the URL given by Moe appears to have been
either a C&P error, or outdated and replaced. Something any erudite
person would have realized. If they weren't stupid as well as
ignorant, as you once again prove you are, fool.
If you really wanted the information, and weren't stone cold
stupid, you would have worked very hard to find the BOP web site, and
do that search. Yes, you FINALLY did so, or someone else did and sent
you the link, but the fact is you are simply running your usual
avoidance scam for the purpose of creating a "plausible deniability,"
just as you have done for at least the past two years.
You actually believe that no one can see you behind the curtain,
Whiz? Or is your motive so sick that you don't care if you are seen as
the CPS shill you are?
You have a long record at this game. And I doubt anyone is being
fooled by it now. You likely conned some people early on, ensuring CPS
would win, but you're so screwed up you actually allowed me to PROVE
you're a CPS shill, and now people ignore your advice.
Still you try.
You consistently allow me to PROVE that you're desperate to have
CPS win 100% of the time.
To think that you could still be getting families torn apart if
you had just let me be when I left ASCPS. But you couldn't. You HAD
to follow me all over Usenet, motivating me to prove you're nothing
more than a CPS shill. Now people ignore your advice and in all
likelihood, prevail against your precious CPS.
womanGoddess
> On Nov 5, 9:31 pm, womanGoddess <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 5, 4:21 pm, womanGoddess <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 2, 10:03 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 2, 1:17 pm, TOP <T...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Going for plausible deniability again, Hanson?
>
> > > > > Why did you avoid the archives? Searching on google news withOUT going
> > > > > to the year, or withOUT using the archives, returns only recent news. It
> > > > > says so on the google news search page.
>
> > > > > Of course you innocently missed that, right?
>
> > > > > But then you have never failed to use archives before to stalk others.
> > > > > Mistake or lie. You tell us.
>
> > > >http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Glen+Frohman+pirated&btnG=Sear...
>
> > > > > Care to explain all your lies about Frohman, or did you just ""not
> > > > > know?"" LOL
>
> > > > > TOP (The Other Pangborn)
>
> > > > The best it shows is an indictment and a partner who turned states
> > > > evidence.
> > > > Why is there no story about CONVICTION?
> > > > You DO know that an indictment is not a conviction, right?
>
> > > >http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DDNB&p_theme=d...
>
> > > >http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0F5...
> X > And the idiot once again posts something
> X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>
> So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
> know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
You seem to be the " dumbass" Greg, which isn't surprising because
you ARe incredibly stupid.
There's a reason why an online newspaper web site has the copyright
notice on their stuff. Maybe you should have done some actual research
on copyright laws before you in your usual stupidity posted
copyrighted material. " Fair use" does not mean the whole article,
numb nuts.
>
> > > Heres a clue, Greg. Compare that with the list of MPAA convictions on
> > > the web site whose addie I posted some weeks ago. If you actually
> > > have some cognitive thought, you can easily figure out which
> > > conviction is his,
>
> > > Moe
> > > Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
> > > " A vampire cop? REALLY?"
> > > "http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
>
> > > Know your scum---http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>
> > Oh greg, here's where I posted Frohman's convict number:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.collecting.cards.non-sports/msg/85...
>
> Moe > I even had a link where people can see for themselves in the
> post.
>
> The link is broken and as far as I can tell never did work.
(( rolls eyes)) The google groups link is broken?
Bullshit.
I showed clearly in the post the search at the BOP.gov web site.
Do'n't tell me you are so brain dead that you didn't go directly to
www.bop.gov, went through the inmate locator search, typed in
Frohman's name and missed this:
Or are you still denying he was convicted of anything now?
That is " PROOF of conviction" greg.
Your response?
(( crickets chirping))
>
> http://inmateloc.bop.gov/locatorservlet/gov.bop.inmatelocator.FindInm...
>
> Let's break that down:
>
> http://inmateloc.bop.gov/
>
> Dead. Is it in the internet archive?
Your idiocy is showing. Obviously you can't figure out its a BOP web
site and go from there.
Damn, you are an idiot!!!
And you actually think what you posted about ME would " intimidate
me"?
AMATEUR!!!
>
> What STATE would that be for?
> Why no designation of state or Federal?
BOP is federal, stupid.
>
> Why is there an http in the MIDDLE of that link?
> Why is the word servlet chopped off even
> way back in 2004?
It was an old link. You could have redone it yourself by going to the
BOP web site, but noooooooooo......
>
> http://inmateloc.bop.gov/locatorservlet/gov.bop.inmatelocator.FindInm...
>
> How could this LINK have EVER worked with
> http in the middle and servlet chopped off?
>
> You said people could check for themselves.
I did. The BOP web site and type in his name.
>
> But that's not really true, is it Maureen?
(( Derisive laugh))
Any more stallings greggie?
>
> Moe > So Greg, are you still claiming that he was never convicted?
>
> I never claimed that he wasn't convicted.
> I claimed you stalked him for over 10 years
> and haven't posted online verifiable PROOF
> that he was CONVICTED.
I never " stalked" him, or anyone, for that matter.
DIRECT proof of his conviction is in your face right now.
Any more evasion excuses Greg?
>
> I saw proof he was indicted, and one of your
> anonymous henchmen posted it as if proof
> of indictment was proof of conviction.
>
> Did you refer to 43481-061 in any other posts online?
I didn't need to greg. One post was enough when Frohman was claiming
he never was in prison. I proved he lied about it.
>
> Is that a state or Federal number?
BOP is a federal prison system, dumbass.
(( rolls eyes))
>
> You DO know that an indictment is NOT a conviction, right, Moe?
So how come he was IN a federal prison Greg? For a vacation?
Now watch greg evade and ignore.
womanGoddess
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2heaf5lpa04mekmmk...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:17:04 -0800 (PST), Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > [Snips for brevity]
>
> >>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy
> >>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's Troy
> >>> > > residence on June 20.
> >>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>
> >>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>
> >>X > And the idiot once again posts something
> >>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>
> >>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
> >>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>
> > Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously.
> > Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not
> > allow for the copying of the entire work.
>
> Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous "Betamax"
> case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
This is about an online newspaper and their use of copyright on what
they actually own, not a technology, Kennie. That was a patent
copyright claim, not a publisher ownership claim.
Do try to stick to the actual subject at hand rather than changing it
to try to save your butt monkey's ass.
womanGoddess
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:01fbf5prsbapqoddr...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy
> >>>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's
> >>>>> > > Troy
> >>>>> > > residence on June 20.
> >>>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>
> >>>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>
> >>>>X > And the idiot once again posts something
> >>>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>
> >>>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
> >>>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>
> >>> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously.
> >>> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not
> >>> allow for the copying of the entire work.
>
> >>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous
> >>"Betamax"
> >>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
>
> > Cite?
>
> You can't be THAT stupid. Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
>
> http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/
>
>
> READ you illiterate ASSHOLE;
>
> "Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of
> individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting
> does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use."
>
> http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=betamaxcase
>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technology/articles/groksterprim...
>
> Now what IDIOTIC comeback can we expect from our resident IDIOT POLACK????
The issue was Greg's violation of an online copyrighted story.
Different matter Kennie, and you damn well know it.
Unlike Greg, you are just smart enough to figure out Greg might be
in some legal trouble over this repeated copyright violation if he was
reported to the proper copyright owners about it.
((VBEG))
womanGoddess
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:38:12 -0800 (PST), Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
Actually when Frohman was indicted and convicted of was two counts
of conspiracy to commit video piracy.
If Greg wants to obsess about Frohman, I say to him go ahead. It'd be
one more of his handful of cyberstalking targets he seems to waste so
much time on. ((Shrugs)) I had personal reasons to be in Frohman's
case, reasons I mentioned numerous times in old posts about the
subject, and when he was finally arrested, I pretty much closed his
file. After Greg tried getting on my case with his usual cowardly
references to the EBay thief, including his usual bad spelling of a
name, I went back and did some basic updating out of curiosity and
found where Frohman claimed his precious cardboard boxed were stolen,
among other things. :-D
>
>
>
> >You DO know that indictment is NOT conviction, right?
>
> Have I ever claimed it is?
Only Greg claims that.
In order have an indictment, there must be proof of criminal activity
presented.
Is Greg now claiming that Frohman WASN'T pirating tapes and selling
them illegally?
>
>
>
> >Do you think Moe does, and her idiot anonymous ""helper""?
>
> As I asked in another thread, has she ever claimed, directly or
> through implication, that she does?
> I note you RAN from my question. You do that a lot when you're
> proved to be the liar you are.
Or when he can't continue with that red herring.
By now Greg reeks of dead fish.
>
> >Can you find any more on 43481-061 or Glen Frohman?
>
> Yes, if motivated to do so.
(( rolls eyes)) As a BOP number pretty much anyone can use it to
actually find the details of his conviction, where he was incarcerated
and so forth.
Except for mentally deficient people like Greg Hanson, OC.
>
> >Was that YOU who posted the anonymous idiocy, Kent?
>
> No.
>
> >You seem to exhibit some subtle sort of ownership
> >of the hollow argument on Copyright v FAIR USE.
>
> Your use and abuse of illegal drugs may cause you to see claims
> of ownership where none exist, but that's your issue to address.
>
> [snip of Greg's admitting I'm correct]
>
> It's accepted that when I'm correct and you can no longer lie
> your way out of it, you post that which you KNOW isn't about me.
> You've already admitted, freely, that the information you post
> isn't about me but some other person who is named Kent Wills. Are you
> so stoned that you think anyone is buying it now?
>
> Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
> (DOB 05/22/1959)
> CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
> Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
> OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
> Comments: CT 2 SPEED
> Disposition Status
> GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
>
> "That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
> Greg Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, or proving he's so
> stupid he thinks I'm Asian.
> MID:<c6bac3f6-7a0e-4bf8-8ddd-d77bccfc6...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/395db830731df54ahttp://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
>
> Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
> drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
> alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
>
> Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
>
> "My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
> in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
> the Child Abuse registry, for example."
> -- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
> Message-ID: <35120b16.0401111639.6825f...@posting.google.com>
>
> " ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
> minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
> minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
> the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
> address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
> April 2000, Gregory Hansonhttp://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
>
> Path:
> news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups:
> misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
>
> With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
> into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
> videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
> was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
> water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
> a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
> gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
> were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
> She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
> prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
>
> "Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
> triumphantly.
>
> --a true story
Moe
womanGoddess
> SUPREME COURT OVERSEER ATTORNEY KUNT WILLS - GARAGE BURGLAR"Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:oa0cf51g0bf4lg8j0...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> >>>>>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video
> >>>>>>> > > piracy
> >>>>>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's
> >>>>>>> > > Troy
> >>>>>>> > > residence on June 20.
> >>>>>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>
> >>>>>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>
> >>>>>>X > And the idiot once again posts something
> >>>>>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>
> >>>>>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
> >>>>>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>
> >>>>> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously.
> >>>>> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not
> >>>>> allow for the copying of the entire work.
>
> >>>>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous
> >>>>"Betamax"
> >>>>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
>
> >>> Cite?
>
> >>You can't be THAT stupid. Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
>
> >>http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/
>
>
> >>READ you illiterate ASSHOLE;
> >>"Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of
> >>individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of
> >>time-shifting
> >>does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use."
> > Are you so drunk you think TV and print are the same thing? You must
> > be.
>
> Hey IMBECILLE try READING sometime.YOU FUKKKKKING MORON!
>
> >>http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=betamaxcase
> >>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technology/articles/groksterprim...
> >>Now what IDIOTIC comeback can we expect from our resident IDIOT POLACK????
> > None. Since I consistently PROVE I'm your intellectual superior,
> > nothing I post could be seen as idiotic.
>
> I see you SNIPPED some of the links I provided. In your POLACK
> reasoning, you seem to believe that this PROVES some point. Such as your
> POLACK claim that it has NO relevance to printed materials. In the finding
> of the Supremes you might see it applies to ALL media. Something a STUPID
> POLACK can't reason. The FAIR USE DOCTRINE applies to *.*! As do its
> exceptions, such as reproducing a work and claiming it as your own, or in
> trying to commercially exploit the work, such as selling copies. Other than
> that, with proper attribution one can quote part or ALL of an article to
> educate or to make a point. The STUPID argument you are TRYING to make,
> Polack, is one that IDIOTS on Usenet have tried to make for years and in the
> end they all get humiliated. READ up on the issue.
Tell that to Michael Savage and how his lawsiut against CAIR fared out
Kennie.
womanGoddess
>
> 1. GLEN FROHMAN 43481-061 49-White-M 02-23-2004 RELEASED
>
> Even THIS does not prove WHAT Glen was convicted of.
> It does NOT state sentence, only an exit date.
Are you still denying he was convicted greg?
Seems to me I showed you WRONG. Instead of being a mature adult and
admit you were in error, you try this pathetic red herring attempt.
(( rolls eyes))
Done thrashing in your tar pit yet Greg?
>
> You DO know the difference between
> INDICTMENT and CONVICTION, don't you, Kent?
How can one be convicted without and indictment Greg? BTW the news
articles showed Frohman was indicted.
You really shouldn't paint yourself in corners Greg. Makes you look
really, really stupid.
>
> Were you the anonymous idiot who confused them?
Confused who?
>
> Do you have any explanation for Maureen's LINK
> which was apparently broken WHEN IT WAS POSTED?
It was an old link. There was enough clues in the old post for you to
go to the BOP web site yourself and do a search even a fourth grader
could do.
For some reason you seem incapable of doing simple cognitive tasks
like that.
>
> Why would Moe post a very broken link and
> claim that it proved Glen was convicted?
Since I now showed a link that works, what's your excuse now?
Do enlighten us how someone who served time IN prison was not
convicted or indicted.
>
> Did you think it ever actually worked with an
> http prefix buried in the middle of the link
> and the word servlet chopped off?
Did you even think of doing the BOP web site search yourself?
Man you are STUPID!!!!
But then we know that already.
womanGoddess
> Frohman's name and missed this:
>
Um Greggie is this YOU?
My my, Did YOU serve some federal prison time?
Since you like to claim that anyone who shares the same name as your
stalking target IS that person, I thought your own standards of "
proof" would be used on you.
krp
"womanGoddess" <fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6d48e14d-92ea-4313...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy
> >>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's
> >>> > > Troy
> >>> > > residence on June 20.
> >>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>
> >>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>
> >>X > And the idiot once again posts something
> >>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>
> >>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
> >>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>
> > Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously.
> > Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not
> > allow for the copying of the entire work.
>
> Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous
> "Betamax"
> case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
MAUREEN MCALLISTER> This is about an online newspaper and their use of
copyright on what
MAUREEN MCALLISTER> they actually own, not a technology, Kennie. That was a
patent
MAUREEN MCALLISTER> copyright claim, not a publisher ownership claim.
They still own it, Maureen. BUT the "Fair Use Doctrine" allows for the
articles to be quoted in part or in whole so long as proper attribution is
given and you are not selling the materials as your own. Maybe if you
weren't such an ignorant feminazi bith, you could understand what the
Supreme Court actually said in the case. I know that because SONY makes
electronic ger the issue throws you. Forget that the court mentioned PRINT
MEDIA in its long recitation. It sails right over the point on your little
heasd. WHOOOOSH!
krp
MAUREEN MCALLISTER> Are you still denying he was convicted greg?
Well it certainly indicates he was convicted of SOMETHING. Could be
anything from terrorism to chewing gum in class.
womanGoddess
> "womanGoddess" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Again the SONY case is not the same issue as what Greg did. Greg
copied the WHOLE article and posted it without the consent of the
copyright owner.
Are you now claiming to be a legal expert on copyright law Kennie?
Do elucidate how you are such a LEGAL EXPERT on the matter that you
can say definitely that your shill, your patsy Greg Hanson can not
possibly be in trouble for posting a copyrighted article in its
entirety without the consent of the copyright owner.
The Sony Betamax case deals with personal use copying of on air
material. it does NOT cover anyone who makes copies of that taped copy
and sells them, as Frohman and so many others found out.
womanGoddess
> "womanGoddess" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
And yet you seem to ignore your patsy Greg's own little post that
says what he was CHARGED WITH.
You have a remarkable ability to ignore the facts, particularly
when it is to your advantage to ignore the facts.
Or are you in fact as stupid as Greg is, so stupid that you need all
the dots connected and presented to you on the spot?
One does not serve federal prison time for chewing gum in class.
BTW how can you explain how Greg Hanson's name came up in the BOP
inmate search database?
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >I am still fairly amused that some anonymous
>> >schmuck thought he had PROVED Glen
>> >had been convicted using only proof that
>> >Glen had been INDICTED.
>>
>> What does Glen have to do with copyright law? Are you so scared
>> of the truth that you MUST divert attention away from it? Or are you
>> once again offering undeniable PROOF that you're obsessed with a man
>> you've never met on-line or in real life?
>
> Actually when Frohman was indicted and convicted of was two counts
>of conspiracy to commit video piracy.
Ah, so that's the connection.
>
> If Greg wants to obsess about Frohman,
If? Greg has proved, beyond any possible doubt, that he is
obsessed with Glen. So much so that Greg needed to bring Glen's name
into the discussion.
True, his intent was to distract from the truth you were
presenting at the time, but in doing so, he offered the PROOF that
he's obsessed with Glen.
>I say to him go ahead. It'd be
>one more of his handful of cyberstalking targets he seems to waste so
>much time on.
It's not like Greg has a job to take up any time.
>((Shrugs)) I had personal reasons to be in Frohman's
>case, reasons I mentioned numerous times in old posts about the
>subject, and when he was finally arrested, I pretty much closed his
>file. After Greg tried getting on my case with his usual cowardly
>references to the EBay thief, including his usual bad spelling of a
>name, I went back and did some basic updating out of curiosity and
>found where Frohman claimed his precious cardboard boxed were stolen,
>among other things. :-D
>
I'm not so motivated to check on the guy. Having never met him,
on-line or in real life, I doubt I will ever be motivated.
Had I encountered him, I might well be motivated to check up on
him.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >You DO know that indictment is NOT conviction, right?
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0Have I ever claimed it is?
>
> Only Greg claims that.
>
> In order have an indictment, there must be proof of criminal activity
>presented.
But it can be very weak proof.
The prosecution is the only one presenting evidence at a GJ
indictment. As such, it's more news worthy when an indictment is not
granted.
>
> Is Greg now claiming that Frohman WASN'T pirating tapes and selling
>them illegally?
It's still possible he wasn't. Not likely, but possible.
An indictment means nothing, and a conviction only means the
prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >Do you think Moe does, and her idiot anonymous ""helper""?
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0As I asked in another thread, has she ever claimed, directly o=
>r
>> through implication, that she does?
>> =A0 =A0 =A0I note you RAN from my question. =A0You do that a lot when you=
>'re
>> proved to be the liar you are.
>
> Or when he can't continue with that red herring.
>By now Greg reeks of dead fish.
Maybe he should try using shampoo :)
>
>>
>> >Can you find any more on 43481-061 or Glen Frohman?
>>
>> =A0 =A0 =A0Yes, if motivated to do so.
>
> (( rolls eyes)) As a BOP number pretty much anyone can use it to
>actually find the details of his conviction, where he was incarcerated
>and so forth.
>
The problem for me is a lack of motivation.
Greg firmly believes that since he is obsessed with the guy,
EVERYONE must be.
> Except for mentally deficient people like Greg Hanson, OC.
Greg is mentally retarded. So true is this claim that Greg has
never offered any sort of denial. And by his standards, a lack of
denial is an admission that the claim is correct, Greg is mentally
retarded.
He really is UNABLE to understand how to use the number to find
information about the guy.
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, or proving he's so
stupid he thinks I'm Asian.
MID:<c6bac3f6-7a0e-4bf8-8ddd-d77bccfc6...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/395db830731df54a
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott Hanson, wife beater and child abuser: "Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> 1. GLEN FROHMAN 43481-061 49 -White-M 02-23-2004 RELEASED
>>
>> Even THIS does not prove WHAT Glen was convicted of.
>> It does NOT state sentence, only an exit date.
>
> Are you still denying he was convicted greg?
He is, actually.
>
> Seems to me I showed you WRONG. Instead of being a mature adult and
>admit you were in error, you try this pathetic red herring attempt.
Greg is, emotionally and intellectually, about nine years old.
>
>(( rolls eyes))
>
> Done thrashing in your tar pit yet Greg?
>
BURN!
>>
>> You DO know the difference between
>> INDICTMENT and CONVICTION, don't you, Kent?
>
> How can one be convicted without and indictment Greg? BTW the news
>articles showed Frohman was indicted.
If one has a preliminary hearing, or the prosecution files an
information, accusation, or complaint, an indictment is not necessary.
In a federal matter, such as Glen's, an indictment is, I think,
required by the Constitution.
>
> You really shouldn't paint yourself in corners Greg. Makes you look
>really, really stupid.
Greg does this a great deal, then whines that he has given
himself no other options.
>
>
>>
>> Were you the anonymous idiot who confused them?
>
> Confused who?
>
>>
>> Do you have any explanation for Maureen's LINK
>> which was apparently broken WHEN IT WAS POSTED?
>
> It was an old link. There was enough clues in the old post for you to
>go to the BOP web site yourself and do a search even a fourth grader
>could do.
>
> For some reason you seem incapable of doing simple cognitive tasks
>like that.
It's due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs he admitted.
>
>>
>> Why would Moe post a very broken link and
>> claim that it proved Glen was convicted?
>
> Since I now showed a link that works, what's your excuse now?
He will likely run from the thread.
>
> Do enlighten us how someone who served time IN prison was not
>convicted or indicted.
>
He was convicted. He was also indicted.
Greg has trouble understanding this.
>>
>> Did you think it ever actually worked with an
>> http prefix buried in the middle of the link
>> and the word servlet chopped off?
>
> Did you even think of doing the BOP web site search yourself?
He couldn't think of it. Someone had to send him a link.
>
> Man you are STUPID!!!!
>
>But then we know that already.
Greg goes out of his way to PROVE he's stupid (unable to learn).
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>> 1. GLEN FROHMAN 43481-061 49-White-M 02-23-2004 RELEASED
>>
>> Even THIS does not prove WHAT Glen was convicted of.
>> It does NOT state sentence, only an exit date.
>
> MAUREEN MCALLISTER> Are you still denying he was convicted greg?
>
> Well it certainly indicates he was convicted of SOMETHING. Could be
>anything from terrorism to chewing gum in class.
Are you so drunk you think one gets federal prison time for
chewing gum in class?
Read the true bill handed down by the Grand Jury, stupid.
"you are reading Moore's SELECTIVE material that is HIGHLY edited."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn claiming in misc.legal that David Moore can
and does edit Google's Usenet archive.
Message-ID: <n9Sfm.1372$nh2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> > 1. GLEN FROHMAN 43481-061 49-White-M 02-23-2004 RELEASED
>>
>> > Even THIS does not prove WHAT Glen was convicted of.
>> > It does NOT state sentence, only an exit date.
>>
>> MAUREEN MCALLISTER> Are you still denying he was convicted greg?
>>
>> Well it certainly indicates he was convicted of SOMETHING. Could be
>> anything from terrorism to chewing gum in class.
>
> And yet you seem to ignore your patsy Greg's own little post that
>says what he was CHARGED WITH.
In Pangborn's warped view, one can be convicted of that for which
they've not been charged.
>
> You have a remarkable ability to ignore the facts, particularly
>when it is to your advantage to ignore the facts.
He's been doing that since the days of Fidonet, if the claims of
people who recall him from Fidonet are accurate.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/fidonet.html
>
> Or are you in fact as stupid as Greg is, so stupid that you need all
>the dots connected and presented to you on the spot?
>
> One does not serve federal prison time for chewing gum in class.
Ken thinks they do.
>
> BTW how can you explain how Greg Hanson's name came up in the BOP
>inmate search database?
Under Gregborn Logic�, this is because the Greg we know did
federal time. Both Greg and Ken believe everyone with the same first
and last name are all the same person. They've offered the proof of
this themselves.
This means they must both claim that the Greg Hanson we know did
federal time, or admit they've been far less than honest about their
standards.
Kent Wills
Even after I proved Pangborn wrong, with a link to the copyright
office web site, he still makes the claim. Up to that point Ken could
have stated he was in error about what is and is not allowed under
fair use. Now he has no choice but to admit he has been lying all
along.
It's little wonder his CONsulting business has failed. While
David's TRUTH site (http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com) did do some
damage, Ken has proved he can bring down his business far better on
his own.
"It's attached to a thing called a "WIFE" Betty."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn showing how he views his wife
as an object and NOT a human being.
Message-ID: <KLf2j.31312$9h.4837@trnddc07>
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> They still own it, Maureen. BUT the "Fair Use Doctrine" allows for the
>> articles to be quoted in part or in whole so long as proper attribution is
>> given and you are not selling the materials as your own. Maybe if you
>> weren't such an ignorant feminazi bith, you could understand what the
>> Supreme Court actually said in the case. I know that because SONY makes
>> electronic ger the issue throws you. Forget that the court mentioned PRINT
>> MEDIA in its long recitation. It sails right over the point on your little
>> heasd. WHOOOOSH!
>
> Again the SONY case is not the same issue as what Greg did. Greg
>copied the WHOLE article and posted it without the consent of the
>copyright owner.
>
> Are you now claiming to be a legal expert on copyright law Kennie?
By Pangborn's own standards, he must.
>
> Do elucidate how you are such a LEGAL EXPERT on the matter that you
>can say definitely that your shill, your patsy Greg Hanson can not
>possibly be in trouble for posting a copyrighted article in its
>entirety without the consent of the copyright owner.
>
> The Sony Betamax case deals with personal use copying of on air
>material. it does NOT cover anyone who makes copies of that taped copy
>and sells them, as Frohman and so many others found out.
I already proved that. Of course, Pangborn LIES and claims
current copyright law is bound by case law from the early 80's.
Yes, Pangborn is really that INCOMPETENT when it comes to matters
of law.
Is there any wonder why his CONsulting business is in the tank?
Pangborn does far more damage to his business than anything David's
TRUTH site (http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com) could ever hope to do.
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous
>> >>"Betamax"
>> >>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
>>
>> > =A0 =A0 Cite?
>>
>> You can't be THAT stupid. =A0Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
>>
>> http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_....
>>
>> READ you illiterate ASSHOLE;
>>
>> "Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of
>> individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shift=
>ing
>> does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use."
>>
>> http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=3Dbetamaxcase
>>
>> http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=3DUS&vol=3D464&inv=
>...
>>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technology/articles/groksterprim...
>>
>> Now what IDIOTIC comeback can we expect from our resident IDIOT POLACK???=
>?
>
> The issue was Greg's violation of an online copyrighted story.
>Different matter Kennie, and you damn well know it.
>
Of course he knows. I was able to prove his claim wrong.
So fearful was, and is, Pangborn of the truth, he snipped the
proof when he replied.
> Unlike Greg, you are just smart enough to figure out Greg might be
>in some legal trouble over this repeated copyright violation if he was
>reported to the proper copyright owners about it.
>
>((VBEG))
If they opt to take action.
Some self admitted user and abuser of illegal drugs isn't likely
to do any real damage to the paper. Further, he has no job, and no
means of support, other than mooching off Lisa. They might win a
suit, but with Greg having nothing, that's all they would have.
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
> Um Greggie is this YOU?
>
>http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=3DIDSearch&needing=
>MoreList=3Dfalse&IDType=3DIRN&IDNumber=3D35580-048&x=3D71&y=3D16
>
> My my, Did YOU serve some federal prison time?
By Greg's own standards, everyone with the same first name are
all the same person, he MUST admit it is him.
>
> Since you like to claim that anyone who shares the same name as your
>stalking target IS that person, I thought your own standards of "
>proof" would be used on you.
He hates that. He is to be exempted from his own standards.
Greegor
G > 1. GLEN FROHMAN 43481-061 49-White-M 02-23-2004 RELEASED
G >
G > Even THIS does not prove WHAT Glen was convicted of.
G > It does NOT state sentence, only an exit date.
Moe > Are you still denying he was convicted greg?
Got a LINK to where I said he wasn't convicted?
I just posted a WORKING link proving he was incarcerated.
But it doesn't say WHAT he was convicted of.
I note that you apparently NEVER posted proof that he was.
Your anonymous flunky tried to pass off proof of
an INDICTMENT as proof of conviction!
Moe > Seems to me I showed you WRONG.
It might seem that way to a moron like you.
Please post a LINK to where I stated that Glen was not convicted.
YOU on the other hand, stalked and harassed the
guy without even proving that he really was convicted.
Not that his conviction justifies your stalking either!
Moe > Instead of being a mature adult and
Moe > admit you were in error, you try this
Moe > pathetic red herring attempt.
Moe >
Moe > (( rolls eyes))
Moe >
Moe > Done thrashing in your tar pit yet Greg?
G > You DO know the difference between
G > INDICTMENT and CONVICTION, don't you, Kent?
Moe > How can one be convicted without and
Moe > indictment Greg? BTW the news
Moe > articles showed Frohman was indicted.
Indictment is more like being CHARGED
than being convicted.
You could be indicted and never convicted.
Moe > You really shouldn't paint yourself
Moe > in corners Greg. Makes you look
Moe > really, really stupid.
Your anonymous stooge tried to pass off proof
of indictment as proof of conviction.
G > Were you the anonymous idiot who confused them?
Moe > Confused who?
Indictment confused with conviction.
G > Do you have any explanation for
G > Maureen's LINK which was apparently
G > broken WHEN IT WAS POSTED?
Moe > It was an old link.
Apparently not working even when you posted it!
Moe > There was enough clues in the old post
Moe > for you to go to the BOP web site yourself
Moe > and do a search even a fourth grader
Moe > could do.
Moe > For some reason you seem incapable
Moe > of doing simple cognitive tasks like that.
Which is why YOU didn't post a working link.
And you still haven't posted a link that
describes WHAT he was convicted for,
or for how long.
G > Why would Moe post a very broken link and
G > claim that it proved Glen was convicted?
Moe > Since I now showed a link that works,
Moe > what's your excuse now?
You didn't provide a working link.
My question is WHY not?
Moe > Do enlighten us how someone who served
Moe > time IN prison was not convicted or indicted.
G > Did you think it ever actually worked with an
G > http prefix buried in the middle of the link
G > and the word servlet chopped off?
Moe > Did you even think of doing the BOP web site search yourself?
You didn't answer the damned question!
WHY didn't YOU post a working link to the info?
You stalked and haarassed the poor cuss for
over TEN YEARS and YOU brought him up
because you are still obsessed, so WHY
didn't you post a working BOP link before?
It's a bit like the Bobbi thing.
Just how many people named Bobbi did you stalk and harass?
Moe > Man you are STUPID!!!!
Moe > But then we know that already.
I like that you think that.
PS - Got any more details on Glen Frohman,
like the court records?
Should I post a SCAN of such records or
will you post a LINK to same?
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>G > 1. GLEN FROHMAN �43481-061 49-White-M �02-23-2004 �RELEASED
>G >
>G > Even THIS does not prove WHAT Glen was convicted of.
>G > It does NOT state sentence, only an exit date.
>
>Moe > �Are you still denying he was convicted greg?
>
>Got a LINK to where I said he wasn't convicted?
Message-ID:
<50281d68-b110-4cd7...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
>
>I just posted a WORKING link proving he was incarcerated.
So did Moe.
>But it doesn't say WHAT he was convicted of.
>
Once again you offer the PROOF that you HATE all that is America.
People aren't just thrown into prison. They must first be convicted.
But then, you think people should be tried without first being charged
with a crime.
It should be clear to one as stone cold stupid as you that he was
convicted for the charges presented in the true bill.
>I note that you apparently NEVER posted proof that he was.
Why do you lie? I've asked this question of you MANY times, yet
you have never answered. You've yet to even acknowledge it. In fact,
you prefer to snip it when replying rather that even risk an honest
answer.
>Your anonymous flunky tried to pass off proof of
>an INDICTMENT as proof of conviction!
What's the MID for this post you reference?
>
>Moe > �Seems to me I showed you WRONG.
>
>It might seem that way to a moron like you.
Projection is a bad thing, Greg. You should cease.
>
>Please post a LINK to where I stated that Glen was not convicted.
>
Message-ID:
<50281d68-b110-4cd7...@m38g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>
>YOU on the other hand, stalked and harassed the
>guy without even proving that he really was convicted.
You've yet to offer evidence to support, let alone prove, Moe
stalked and/or harassed Glen.
She did prove he was convicted. If you would stay off the
illegal drugs, you MIGHT be able to comprehend such things. Although
it is possible the mental retardation you're use and abuse of illegal
drugs has given you is permanent.
>Not that his conviction justifies your stalking either!
Until you brought his name into the discussion, no one had ever
mentioned him.
Why are you so obsessed with the guy? Have you met him on-line
or in real life? Is there something he did to you, Greg, that forces
you to DEMAND links to information about the guy?
What is your motivation for wanting so much information about
him?
>
>Moe > Instead of being a mature adult and
>Moe > admit you were in error, you try this
>Moe > pathetic red herring attempt.
>Moe >
>Moe > (( rolls eyes))
>Moe >
>Moe > �Done thrashing in your tar pit yet Greg?
>
>G > You DO know the difference between
>G > INDICTMENT and CONVICTION, don't you, Kent?
>
>Moe > �How can one be convicted without and
>Moe > indictment Greg? BTW the news
>Moe > articles showed Frohman was indicted.
>
>Indictment is more like being CHARGED
>than being convicted.
It is EXACTLY like being charged.
But then, you PROVED you hate the U.S. so much that you want
people tried without being charged.
>
>You could be indicted and never convicted.
But in a federal case, like Glen's, one can't be convicted without
being indicted.
That Glen spent time in prison shows he was convicted.
If you have anything that shows he was convicted for anything
other than the crimes for which he was tried, offer it (a win for
you). If you're once again offering proof that you're doing nothing
more than trying to distract from the truth, you'll provide nothing
(another in a LONG list of losses for you).
>
>Moe > �You really shouldn't paint yourself
>Moe > in corners Greg. �Makes you look
>Moe > really, really stupid.
>
>Your anonymous stooge tried to pass off proof
>of indictment as proof of conviction.
When? Unless you're flat out lying, you'll offer proof that
anyone did any such thing.
>
>G > Were you the anonymous idiot who confused them?
>
>Moe > �Confused who?
>
>Indictment confused with conviction.
That's a what, not a who.
Why did you often LIE and claim you are erudite when 100% of all
available evidence shows you are the polar opposite?
>
>G > Do you have any explanation for
>G > Maureen's LINK which was apparently
>G > broken WHEN IT WAS POSTED?
>
>Moe > It was an old link.
>
>Apparently not working even when you posted it!
Prove it.
BTW, using it, I was able to find the link you posted within
seconds. I find it of interest that it took you over a day.
Erudite is NOT a word one can honestly use to describe you.
>
>Moe > There was enough clues in the old post
>Moe > for you to go to the BOP web site yourself
>Moe > and do a search even a fourth grader
>Moe > could do.
>
>Moe > For some reason you seem incapable
>Moe > of doing simple cognitive tasks like that.
>
>Which is why YOU didn't post a working link.
Did you read my extremely simplified explanation regarding the
link? I expect the average fourth grader would comprehend, so you
should be able. Unless I have over estimated your intellectual level
again.
>
>And you still haven't posted a link that
>describes WHAT he was convicted for,
>or for how long.
Here's a free clue. He will have been convicted of the crime(s)
listed in the true bill handed down from the Grand Jury.
Let me guess, you're unable to figure out just how to find and
read that as well?
Time for you to stand DEMANDING people post links to it. You
NEED to know EVERYTHING about Glen.
Maybe you can whine about how I'm not posting a link to it. You
know how you LOVE to have me point out the requirement. It allows you
to claim you're a victim.
>
>G > Why would Moe post a very broken link and
>G > claim that it proved Glen was convicted?
>
>Moe > Since I now showed a link that works,
>Moe > what's your excuse now?
>
>You didn't provide a working link.
>My question is WHY not?
But she did. Why are you LYING and claiming she didn't?
That you snipped the URL in your reply doesn't mean she didn't
post it.
>
>Moe > Do enlighten us how someone �who served
>Moe > time IN prison was not convicted or indicted.
>
>G > Did you think it ever actually worked with an
>G > http prefix buried in the middle of the link
>G > and the word servlet chopped off?
>
>Moe > Did you even think of doing the BOP web site search yourself?
>
>You didn't answer the damned question!
Did she pull a Gregory Scott Hanson?
I've asked you questions and you've refused to answer.
Moe has asked you questions and you've refused to answer.
Dan has asked you questions and you've refused to answer.
I see that each time Moe uses your standards, you get testy. You
whine like a baby.
Why is that?
Please, "...answer the damned question!"
>WHY didn't YOU post a working link to the info?
She did. Your snipping it doesn't mean she didn't post it.
>You stalked and haarassed the poor cuss for
>over TEN YEARS and YOU brought him up
Why do you lie? I posted a link to the post where his name first
came up in misc.legal (you may recall you cried about it -- prove me
correct, please).
YOU posted his name. You have yet to explain why.
>because you are still obsessed, so WHY
>didn't you post a working BOP link before?
The link expired. I explained this in great detail.
>
>It's a bit like the Bobbi thing.
>Just how many people named Bobbi did you stalk and harass?
Bobbi who? I've asked you to be specific about this Bobbi woman,
and you've RUN from it each time.
Moe asked you and you RAN like the cowardly child (emotionally
and intellectually) you are.
Maybe you can muster up the ability to point out just which of
the thousands, if not millions, of women named Bobbi you mean.
>
>Moe > Man you are STUPID!!!!
>Moe > But then we know that already.
>
>I like that you think that.
I'm surprised you like that she thinks the truth.
>
>PS - Got any more details on Glen Frohman,
>like the court records?
Why are you so obsessed with him?
>
>Should I post a SCAN of such records or
>will you post a LINK to same?
How obsessed are you with the guy?
You bring his name into the discussion, then LIE and claim it was
Moe. You seek out all sorts of records about him and cry like a baby
when Moe won't help you stalk the man.
When she finally helps you, you cry like a baby because the link
didn't work and you had to do your stalking without her assistance.
Now you're whining that you want more information about the guy.
Why are you so obsessed with Glen? What is your motivation for
constantly asking about him and seeking out all you can find about
him?
Greegor
Are you trying to make the point that you might have the wrong Glen
Frohman?
There are several listed in the USA.
krp
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vdlef59scnvihjuhm...@4ax.com...
Kunt - case law does NOT have an expiration date. It only changes when the
COURT (and not some Usenet WHACK JOB named Kent Wills says so) changes its
ruling in a new case. Otherwise it STANDS, doesn't it ATTORNEY WILLS?
Greegor
KBW > current copyright law is bound by
KBW > case law from the early 80's.
KRP > Kunt - case law does NOT have an expiration
KRP > date. It only changes when the COURT (and
KRP > not some Usenet WHACK JOB named Kent
KRP > Wills says so) changes its ruling in a new
KRP > case. Otherwise it STANDS, doesn't it
KRP > ATTORNEY WILLS?
Kent, Do you really think that FAIR USE caselaw
from the 1980's has been thrown out somehow?
Kent, I think you've been watching too much
fantasy on TV but I eagerly await your dissertation
on the revision of FAIR USE law since the 1980's.
krp
"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:975eb2df-d999-404d...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> KBW > Of course, Pangborn LIES and claims
> KBW > current copyright law is bound by
> KBW > case law from the early 80's.
>
> KRP > Kunt - case law does NOT have an expiration
> KRP > date. It only changes when the COURT (and
> KRP > not some Usenet WHACK JOB named Kent
> KRP > Wills says so) changes its ruling in a new
> KRP > case. Otherwise it STANDS, doesn't it
> KRP > ATTORNEY WILLS?
>
> Kent, Do you really think that FAIR USE caselaw
> from the 1980's has been thrown out somehow?
No, Greg. The goofy POLACK thinks they "EXPIRED." He actually believes
that Supreme Court Decisions are good ON THAT DAY ONLY! And he wonders why I
call *HIM* a stupid Polack. Let me disclaim AGAIN that I do NOT refer to
other Polish people as "stupid Polacks" JUST HIM! It is an apt description
of the IDIOT. He bellows and boasts that Supreme Court decisions from 20
years ago no longer apply, that's in his vast JAILHOUSE LAWYER expertise. He
hold himself out as having such great legal knowledge. GOOFY there, has NO
idea what Shepherd's Digest is or what the hell it is for. He thinks' it is
a math book or list of astrological information on planetary movement.
Although Wills has a BIG MOUTH on legal issues, he constantly makes a fool
of himself.
NOTE TO KENT WILLS: U.S. Supreme Court decisions do NOT expire (unless the
decision, mandates limited application; see Bush v. Gore) they STAND as the
LAW of the land unless the Court and Not some BLOWHARD on Usenet named KUNT
WILLS changes them. There is NO expiration date on decisions Kunt. Not
outside the limited parameters I just mentioned. There are 200 year old
decisions that STAND you fukkkkking IDIOT!
Greegor
KBW > current copyright law is bound by
KBW > case law from the early 80's.
KRP > Kunt - case law does NOT have an expiration
KRP > date. It only changes when the COURT (and
KRP > not some Usenet WHACK JOB named Kent
KRP > Wills says so) changes its ruling in a new
KRP > case. Otherwise it STANDS, doesn't it
KRP > ATTORNEY WILLS?
G > Kent, Do you really think that FAIR USE caselaw
G > from the 1980's has been thrown out somehow?
KRP > No, Greg. The goofy POLACK thinks they
KRP > "EXPIRED." He actually believes that
KRP > Supreme Court Decisions are good ON
KRP > THAT DAY ONLY! And he wonders why I
KRP > call *HIM* a stupid Polack. Let me
KRP > disclaim AGAIN that I do NOT refer to
KRP > other Polish people as "stupid Polacks"
KRP > JUST HIM! It is an apt description of the
KRP > IDIOT. He bellows and boasts that
KRP > Supreme Court decisions from 20 years
KRP > ago no longer apply, that's in his vast
KRP > JAILHOUSE LAWYER expertise. He
KRP > hold himself out as having such great legal
KRP > knowledge. GOOFY there, has NO idea
KRP > what Shepherd's Digest is or what the
KRP > hell it is for. He thinks' it is a math book
KRP > or list of astrological information on
KRP > planetary movement. Although Wills has
KRP > a BIG MOUTH on legal issues, he
KRP > constantly makes a fool of himself.
KRP >
KRP > NOTE TO KENT WILLS: U.S. Supreme
KRP > Court decisions do NOT expire (unless the
KRP > decision, mandates limited application;
KRP > see Bush v. Gore) they STAND as the
KRP > LAW of the land unless the Court and Not
KRP > some BLOWHARD on Usenet named KUNT
KRP > WILLS changes them. There is NO
KRP > expiration date on decisions Kunt. Not
KRP > outside the limited parameters I just
KRP > mentioned. There are 200 year old
KRP > decisions that STAND you fukkkkking IDIOT!
Kent posted in other threads but didn't answer my question.
G > Kent, Do you really think that FAIR USE caselaw
G > from the 1980's has been thrown out somehow?
I eagerly await your dissertation, Kent! LOL
womanGoddess
Oh really? How many have you found in your stalking Greg?
Greegor
G > Are you trying to make the point that you
G > might have the wrong Glen Frohman?
G >
G > There are several listed in the USA.
Moe > Oh really? How many have you found in your stalking Greg?
Moe, You stalked and harassed Glen Frohman
for over a DECADE online.
All I did was look in a phone book and
mention how many people by that name
there are and you accuse me of stalking?
womanGoddess
Why would to take the time to look in a " phone book" Greg, if this
was a minor thing to you?
No you know as well as I do what you ACTUALLY did. You did your
shitty " People Finder" search. You would have known that unlike my
name, there are not many people with the name Glen Frohman around. You
would have found the "Relic Hunter" reference through Google and you
would have found only references to ONE Glen Frohman in your web
searches.
Feel free to show me proof of your claims of > many people " with
that name.
As for stalking, you should talk Greg. How many times have you done
the big files copy and paste to usenet in your posts about Sullivan,
Moore and Wills? You've done that over and over, clogging the usenet
with the wasted bandwidth that you could have simply shown the URL to
ONE post you made.
You claimed I stalked Frohman. I never did.
You claimed I stalked someone named Bobbi, but when challenged to
show details and proof, you change the subject.
You claim I stalked more than those two people ( one vague) that you
mentioned, yet you have yet list their names and show the proof.
Your attempts to intimidate me aren't working Greg. Frankly I'm not
even impressed by what little you think you have on me. Seeing as in
your inept cyberstalking of me you missed a helluva lot of what I
actually have online.
So Greg, what WERE you in the BOP FOR anyway?
My guess is child porn.
Greegor
You mean you posted a photo of an underage boy with you?
womanGoddess
> Moe > My guess is child porn.
>
> You mean you posted a photo of an underage boy with you?
Never did post a photo of me Greg.
Besides, you do know the difference between a MAN ans a son, don't
you?
Or have you forgotten that women can bear children?