Abuse Shelters: Havens for Feminist Thought Reform
Greegor
Abuse Shelters: Havens for Feminist Thought Reform
Monday, January 4, 2010 By Carey Roberts
Feminists will argue until they’re blue in the face that women are
victims of the Great Satanic Patriarchy. That tenet is laughable when
one considers women are leading men on almost every indicator of
social welfare.
But give them credit, feminists are a determined bunch. So in their
crusade to spread the gospel of female victimization, they have
established a network of domestic violence shelters around the nation.
These programs resemble socialist thought reform experiments more than
anything that can be considered to be professional counseling or
crisis intervention.
To gain admittance to such facilities one must of course be female –
after all, male victims of domestic violence are unlikely to benefit
from a regimen of patriarchal deprogramming.
Second, the woman must make the ritualistic claim of being a victim to
abuse. Any type of abuse will suffice: emotional, financial, or
anything else that comes to mind. No police report, no medical record,
no proof of any kind is required. “Always believe the victim,” goes
shelter managers’ circular logic.
In his classical account of Chinese brainwashing, Thought Reform and
the Psychology of Totalism, Robert Lifton recounts how newly-arrived
inmates were assigned to a holding cell where they were subjected to
ridicule, abuse, and physical hazing by the more veteran residents.
Such is the all-too-frequent experience of women in abuse shelters.
One woman, Eileen Pope, spent months inside the YWCA Hope House in
Charleston, W. Va. “I often felt unsafe. There were several physical
and verbal altercations between the shelter residents. I had clothing
stolen from me,” she later related: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/roberts/090824
Once they settle into shelter routines, the women come to realize they
have become unwitting guinea pigs of an ideological bait-and-switch.
At Bethany House in Fairfax, Va., employees would reportedly
“infuriate the woman with propaganda.” One client at a Massachusetts
shelter found the real message was to “accept the indoctrination and
embrace my victimhood.”
The ladies, many of whom are poor, are ordered to attend classes
featuring repetitive mantras like “domestic violence is all about
power and control.” The focus of these sessions is the Power and
Control Wheel, a pedagogical device that recalls V.I. Lenin’s famous
dictum, “We must be engineers of the human soul.”
Social isolation being requisite for proper consciousness-raising, the
women must also agree to cut off communications with their abuser.
Safehorizon in New York City goes one step further, requiring its
residents to “sever relationships with family and friends,” according
to the organization’s website.
Such policies call to mind Robert Lifton’s account of the experience
of one concentration camp survivor: “Our souls were entirely open. It
was complete confidence. We could trust the government.”
Ritual denunciations were an important feature of Chinese brainwashing
camps, with inmates called upon to censure their fathers for
horrendous yet vague crimes. Abuse shelters likewise demand their
residents denounce patriarchy and its putative evils.
A quarter to one-half of women in abuse shelters are currently abusing
alcohol or drugs: http://www.radarsvcs.org/docs/RADARreport-Are-Abuse-Shelters-Helping-True-Victims.pdf
. But don’t expect to find any substance abuse treatment programs on
site. That would be much too bourgeoisie.
Shelter residents enjoy no right to privacy. I have heard from women
about confidences shared with shelter workers that were later passed
on to Child Protective Services and other shelter residents. One woman
revealed, “Nothing was confidential and what I discussed with staff
was being discussed with clients.”
Complaints are verboten because they betray reactionary resistance.
The miscreants may be summarily exited from the facility. At Womencare
in Bellingham, Wash., a blind woman had who been forced to assume a
new name to escape her abuser had her identity outed when she filed a
complaint about lax safety procedures: http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/roberts/080715
Not surprisingly, shelter managers do everything in their power to
keep law enforcement officers at bay. At Another Way in Lake City,
Fla., a former employee wrote, “I, on numerous occasions reported
illegal drug use that I had witnessed take place on Shelter property
and often my complaints were ignored. We always knew not to call the
law unless you were prepared to be unemployed.”
Given these experiences, it’s no surprise that women opt to return to
their abuser rather than continue to subject themselves to this
grandiose government-financed brainwashing experiment.
womanGoddess
> http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/04/abuse-shelters-havens-for-feminis...
>
> Abuse Shelters: Havens for Feminist Thought Reform
>
abused by their spouses.
There is a good reason why males are not allowed to volunteer at
battered women's shelters. If you are a woman who has been beaten,
terrorized, repeatedly raped and subjected to dehumanizing treatment
by your boyfriend, husband or father, you naturally would be afraid of
having males around you, men you wouldn't know, men who might be
abusers ( in your mind) like the one you tried escaping from.
In my college years I volunteered at a battered women's shelter. One
guy who was a buddy of an abuser tried to nice his way inside to find
his friend's GF. Fortunately no one fell for his ruse.
Think about it. If you trusted a guy well enough to be intimate with
him and found out in your relationship that the guy was abusive and
you felt trapped, helpless, and even that you might end up murdered if
you stayed, then being in a BWS where you need to recover mentally,
emotionally and physically, you DON'T need to encounter a male, even a
well-intentioned one, while in a place you were told is safe.
But Greg wouldn't know about that, seeing as he abused his mentally
ill ex-wife and what he did to the seven year old daughter of Lisa
Hawkins.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
Know your scum--- http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
Greegor
> > Abuse Shelters: Havens for Feminist Thought Reform
----------------------
Maureen McAllister of Dardanelle Arkansas wrote:
> This from a web site that ha sno sympathy for women who have been
> abused by their spouses.
>
> There is a good reason why males are not allowed to volunteer at
> battered women's shelters. If you are a woman who has been beaten,
> terrorized, repeatedly raped and subjected to dehumanizing treatment
> by your boyfriend, husband or father, you naturally would be afraid of
> having males around you, men you wouldn't know, men who might be
> abusers ( in your mind) like the one you tried escaping from.
>
> In my college years I volunteered at a battered women's shelter. One
> guy who was a buddy of an abuser tried to nice his way inside to find
> his friend's GF. Fortunately no one fell for his ruse.
>
> Think about it. If you trusted a guy well enough to be intimate with
> him and found out in your relationship that the guy was abusive and
> you felt trapped, helpless, and even that you might end up murdered if
> you stayed, then being in a BWS where you need to recover mentally,
> emotionally and physically, you DON'T need to encounter a male, even a
> well-intentioned one, while in a place you were told is safe.
>
> But Greg wouldn't know about that, seeing as he abused his mentally
> ill ex-wife and what he did to the seven year old daughter of Lisa
> Hawkins.
http://mensnewsdaily.com/2009/12/25/is-your-girlfriend-or-wife-a-professional-victim/
Is your Girlfriend or Wife a Professional Victim?
Friday, December 25, 2009 By Dr. Tara J. Palmatier
Does your girlfriend or wife blame you for everything that’s wrong in
the relationship, even her bad behaviors? Does she refuse to take
responsibility for her own actions, especially the hurtful ones? Do
you frequently feel forced into a role of contrition in which you have
to make up for some imagined or exaggerated “wrong” or that you “owe”
your girlfriend or wife?
If so, you may be involved with a woman who is a professional victim.
Don’t be fooled, she is no victim. Victim-hood is a powerful role. In
fact, women who play the victim are really the aggressor in
relationships. They play the victim to manipulate and control others
by holding you emotionally hostage.
Professional victims are stealth bullies. Being caught in a never
ending blame game with one of these women is a form of emotional abuse
for the man at whom she points her finger in accusation.
The following characteristics are signs that your girlfriend or wife
may be a professional victim:
1) She never acknowledges when she hurts others. She has exclusive
rights to the role of “injured party.” When you call her on her
behavior, she provides ample excuses for why she’s not accountable.
The excuses she provides assign blame for her actions to someone else,
usually the person she’s wronged. It’s always your fault or someone
else’s fault, but never, ever is it her fault.
2) The victim must be victimized. If you’re not an abusive person,
she’ll pull it out of you in order to play the victim script she has
in her head. For example, she needles and needles and needles one of
your sore spots, until you can’t take it any more and snap at her in
defense.
Presto! She just got you to “victimize” her–never mind the previous 2
hours in which she psychologically tormented and bullied you into it.
She needs to play innocent victim to someone’s bad guy. It’s the
foundation of her identity.
This is a very primitive defense mechanism called projective
identification, which, if you’re on the receiving end, is truly awful
in that it makes you feel like the crazy person. It’s a self-
fulfilling prophesy whereby she believes you’re the “bad guy” and
she’s the “victim.” She then behaves or interacts with you in such a
way that you change your behavior in response to her actions and
become the “bad guy.” A telltale sign is that you feel like you’re
being coerced into being someone that you’re not. It’s highly, highly
emotionally abusive.
3) She blames others and circumstances for her own shortcomings or
failures. The professional victim lives in “Never-Never Take Personal
Responsibility Land,” which is bordered to the North by “The Land of
If Only.” This allows her to blame her parents, siblings, co-workers,
bosses, professors and you for her life, career and relationships not
being as she thinks they should be.
She’d be running the business if only her boss recognized her talents.
She’d have graduated from design school and been wildly successful if
her prof hadn’t looked at her cross-eyed. She’d have sex with you more
often if you did more of x, y, and z. Don’t fall for this malarkey,
men. She’s right in that there’s someone to blame for her sad life.
She need only look in the mirror to direct her blame accurately.
4) She admires and respects people who actually treat her badly. This
is a fascinating aspect of the professional victim: They defend those
who harm, exploit and bully them and vilify and lash out at those who
want to help and care for them. She may fondly describe a relative or
ex-boyfriend who sounds like a real S.O.B. and follow it up with, “but
he’s such a good person.” Meanwhile, you bend over backward to tiptoe
around her extreme sensitivities and she accuses you of “beating her
down” and “not being supportive.” Huh?
The fact that she admires and respects bullies and people who abuse
their power is a huge red flag because we emulate those we admire. Let
me make this point crystal clear: SHE ADMIRES BULLIES AND ABUSERS
BECAUSE SHE IS REALLY AN EMOTIONALLY ABUSIVE BULLY IN VICTIM’S
CLOTHING.
It’s impossible to have a loving relationship of equals with a
professional victim. She goes through life feeling slighted and angry,
never taking responsibility for her actions or life. Good luck trying
to talk to her about this. You’ll meet with extreme defensiveness and
more blaming behaviors. Her only identity is that of victim: If she
doesn’t believe she’s being victimized, then who is she? Someone who
treats other people like crap and who is pissing her life away. It’s a
matter of psychological self-preservation versus ego annihilation.
You can’t have a healthy and happy relationship with someone who holds
you hostage and controls you through guilt, emotional blackmail and
blame. This type of person rarely changes and usually has
characteristics of one of the dramatic cluster B personality
disorders, including Borderline Personality Disorder, Narcissistic
Personality Disorder, Histrionic Personality Disorder, Anti-Social
Personality Disorder or some variation.
If you’re involved with one of these women, I encourage you to
reconsider the relationship. When I come across them in life, I try to
avoid them altogether or, at the very least, minimize contact. It’s
really the only way to deal with them.
by Dr Tara J. Palmatier, PsyD
This entry was posted on Friday, December 25th, 2009 at 8:50 am
Dr Tara J. Palmatier holds a Psy.D. in Clinical Psychology and M.Sc.
in Counseling Psychology. She has over a decade of experience
delivering direct services to diverse populations in a variety of
settings. She left the clinical field in 2005 to begin a career in
multimedia editing, writing and consulting. Dr Palmatier is presently
the principal clinical writer and editor for the Mastering My Life
program, which provides confidential guided therapy sessions on a
variety of life issues. She also runs her own blog, A Shrink for Men,
and a private relationship consultation practice for individuals,
primarily men, who are suffering emotional abuse in their
relationships. Dr. Palmatier has a strong interest in the application
of psychoanalytic theory to the Arts. Her dissertation, Ceci N’Est Pas
Une Thèse: An Applied Psychoanalysis of René Magritte (May 2004)
examines early childhood parental object loss, incomplete mourning,
repetition compulsion and creative outcomes. Dr. Palmatier is a member
of the board of directors of the Hospice Education Institute, a member
of the American Psychological Association, a former graduate member of
the British Psychological Society, and past coordinator of Jungian
Seminars in Switzerland.
womanGoddess
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/04/...
>
> > > Abuse Shelters: Havens for Feminist Thought Reform
>
> ----------------------
>
> Maureen McAllister of Dardanelle Arkansas wrote:
>
>
>
> > This from a web site that ha sno sympathy for women who have been
> > abused by their spouses.
>
> > There is a good reason why males are not allowed to volunteer at
> > battered women's shelters. If you are a woman who has been beaten,
> > terrorized, repeatedly raped and subjected to dehumanizing treatment
> > by your boyfriend, husband or father, you naturally would be afraid of
> > having males around you, men you wouldn't know, men who might be
> > abusers ( in your mind) like the one you tried escaping from.
>
> > In my college years I volunteered at a battered women's shelter. One
> > guy who was a buddy of an abuser tried to nice his way inside to find
> > his friend's GF. Fortunately no one fell for his ruse.
>
> > Think about it. If you trusted a guy well enough to be intimate with
> > him and found out in your relationship that the guy was abusive and
> > you felt trapped, helpless, and even that you might end up murdered if
> > you stayed, then being in a BWS where you need to recover mentally,
> > emotionally and physically, you DON'T need to encounter a male, even a
> > well-intentioned one, while in a place you were told is safe.
>
> > But Greg wouldn't know about that, seeing as he abused his mentally
> > ill ex-wife and what he did to the seven year old daughter of Lisa
> > Hawkins.
>
>
> Is your Girlfriend or Wife a Professional Victim?
>
How about YOU claiming to be the VICTIM greg?
You claimed to be the victim when you abused a seven year old girl.
You claimed to be the victim when the wife you abused supposedly
threw a frozen 20 lb. turkey at you, missed and the turkey crashed
through a window. According to you, the velocity of said frozen turkey
was enough to INBED glass shards in the FROZEN turkey so you " had" to
throw the whole bird away. And this from a woman weaker than you who
wouldn't have the upper body musculature TO throw a 20 pound frozen
bird hard enough and far enough to shatter a window, much less embed
glass shards in the frozen bird.
To you no woman has ever been a victim.
You might as well post NAMBLA propaganda Greg.
BTW where is your master Kennie?
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jan 6, 11:23�pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/04/abuse-shelters-havens-for-feminis...
>>
>> Abuse Shelters: Havens for Feminist Thought Reform
>>
> This from a web site that ha sno sympathy for women who have been
>abused by their spouses.
Possibly written by a wife beater like Greg.
>
> There is a good reason why males are not allowed to volunteer at
>battered women's shelters. If you are a woman who has been beaten,
>terrorized, repeatedly raped and subjected to dehumanizing treatment
>by your boyfriend, husband or father, you naturally would be afraid of
>having males around you, men you wouldn't know, men who might be
>abusers ( in your mind) like the one you tried escaping from.
>
> In my college years I volunteered at a battered women's shelter. One
>guy who was a buddy of an abuser tried to nice his way inside to find
>his friend's GF. Fortunately no one fell for his ruse.
>
> Think about it. If you trusted a guy well enough to be intimate with
>him and found out in your relationship that the guy was abusive and
>you felt trapped, helpless, and even that you might end up murdered if
>you stayed, then being in a BWS where you need to recover mentally,
>emotionally and physically, you DON'T need to encounter a male, even a
>well-intentioned one, while in a place you were told is safe.
>
>But Greg wouldn't know about that, seeing as he abused his mentally
>ill ex-wife and what he did to the seven year old daughter of Lisa
>Hawkins.
Greg BEAT his wife at least two times. It's far more plausible
then not he did so many more times, but we have only the two
convictions, so we can only KNOW about two.
Greg has bragged about how he abused Lisa's little girl.
Of course, he's never offered anything to support his claim that
his abuse got him placed on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry. I believe it
was and is a lie he uses to con parents who are dealing with CPS to
trust him. This enables him to sabotage their cases.
Greg has, by his own standards, made the tactic admission that my
belief is actual fact.
A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott "Piggly
Wiggly" Hanson (either directly or through the same standards he
DEMANDS be held to others):
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, by
attacking my first wife (deceased).
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child abuser:
"Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child
abuser
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
triumphantly.
--a true story
As of Sunday, Nov. 29, 2009:
Financials
Title: STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREG SCOTT
Case: 06571 AGCR015216 (LINN)
Citation Number:
Summary Orig Paid Due
COSTS 9200.00 850.00 8350.00
FINE 500.00 500.00 0.00
SURCHARGE 150.00 150.00 0.00
RESTITUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00
OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00
$9850.00 $1500.00 $8350.00
Yes, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson still owes over
$8000.00 related to his convictions for BEATING his ex-wife.
"I am now a "founded" child abuser for making a
7 year old take a fast cold shower."
-- Gregory Scot "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson bragging in MID
<cu6H6.14493$3c6.3...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com>
In Message-ID:
<c7be6a38-8d1d-4c0a...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson admitted that by his standards,
he RAPED his ex-wife. The same ex-wife he was twice convicted for
BEATING.
In Message-ID:
<8db2eada-0546-4c1a...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson admits that his use and abuse of
illegal drugs forced him to LIE about the existence of certain
photographs.
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> Is your Girlfriend or Wife a Professional Victim?
>>
>(( rests snipped because its bullshit))
>
> How about YOU claiming to be the VICTIM greg?
>
So long as no one sees him as a PROFESSIONAL victim.
The thought of a profession of any sort seems to fill Greg with
dread.
> You claimed to be the victim when you abused a seven year old girl.
> You claimed to be the victim when the wife you abused supposedly
>threw a frozen 20 lb. turkey at you, missed and the turkey crashed
>through a window.
Greg made the tactic admission that he did, in fact, throw it at
her and she ducked.
>According to you, the velocity of said frozen turkey
>was enough to INBED glass shards in the FROZEN turkey so you " had" to
>throw the whole bird away.
Actually, I think he claimed he chose to leave it in the ravine
due to the shards of glass.
>And this from a woman weaker than you who
>wouldn't have the upper body musculature TO throw a 20 pound frozen
>bird hard enough and far enough to shatter a window, much less embed
>glass shards in the frozen bird.
>
> To you no woman has ever been a victim.
According to Greg, his BEATING her was all her fault.
>
> You might as well post NAMBLA propaganda Greg.
If I understand correctly, and frightening enough, my source is
an old episode of "Bob Lar$on," NAMBLA is about adult males and little
boys. Greg has made it very clear he likes pre-pubescent girls.
I expect there is an organization for such "men," but I haven't a
clue what it's called.
>
> BTW where is your master Kennie?
He's still on-line, but not posting.
My guess, and it's only a guess, is that he wants to give the
impression that he's been given the boot from Roadrunner. Once
someone states this is what happened, he'll pop up.
"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.
Greegor
Dec. 24, 2009
Woman Calls 911 When Husband Refuses To Eat Dinner
Woman Accused Of Making Non-emergency 911 Calls, Including Complaint
Husband Refused To Eat
(AP) KERRVILLE, Texas (AP) - Prosecutors will review the case of a
woman authorities claim has called 911 30 times over six months for
non-emergency reasons, including a call to complain that her husband
refused to eat his dinner. Last Friday, the woman allegedly made a
pair of calls to 911, including a hang-up and another where a woman
was heard screaming.
Police were dispatched to the residence and officer Paul Gonzales said
police were told by her that "her husband did not want to eat his
supper." A police report said the 53-year-old woman was also yelling
"about things that happened two weeks ago."
The woman now faces charges of 911 abuse.
Greegor
Research Dismisses the Validity of Feminist Gender Studies
Saturday, October 3, 2009 By Pelle Billing
If you are a regular reader of Men’s News Daily, then you probably
have a good grasp of the many different ways that contemporary
feminism can be criticized. Feminism tends to:
•use incorrect facts (eg. factoids about domestic violence)
•ignore correct facts (eg. research about innate sex differences)
•present men as guilty and women as victims, no matter what the issue
at hand is
•elaborate about every tiny problem that women have while ignoring
crucial men’s issues
The list could be made much longer, but you get the drift. There are
lots of different ways to demonstrate how feminism rests on incorrect
assumptions and how it leads to misandry and a skewed perception of
reality.
However, a few months ago, a came across a whole new way of
“undressing” feminism, that I hadn’t seen before. This new kind of
criticism towards feminism came from Swedish researcher Helen
Lindberg, who earlier this year presented her doctoral thesis called
Only Women Bleed?: A Critical Reassessment of Comprehensive Feminist
Social Theory.
In her thesis she has evaluated four different feminist theories, with
regard to internal coherence, and their usefulness as theories in a
research context. The feminist theories evaluated are:
1.Catharine M MackInnon’s Radical Feminism
2.Anna G Jonasdottir’s Theory of Love Power
3.Luce Irigaray’s Feminism of Sexual Difference
4.Judith Butler’s Queer Feminism
Radical feminism and elements of queer feminism together constitute
what could be called postmodern or contemporary feminism, which means
that her results are extremely interesting for anyone who’s critical
of how feminism is affecting society. Furthermore, women’s study and
gender study departments in universities around the world have radical
feminism as their theoretical foundation, meaning that Lindberg’s
research could be extremely embarrassing for them if she really is
able to demonstrate that the theories they are founded on lack
internal coherence and are unsuitable to use for research purposes.
The purpose of her doctoral thesis can be understood from her
abstract:
Is there a viable specifically feminist social theory that can serve
as heuristic devise in our social research? This thesis is a critical
reassessment of the ontological and normative assumptions of four
social theories with specific and clear claims of being feminist.
[...]
The feminist social theories are examined and critically discussed
according to their internal coherence and their external relevance;
which includes the normative political implications that can be
inferred.
Since the English abstract is pretty short and conservative, I will
translate parts of the Swedish abstract, so you can see just how
severe her criticism is:
The thesis demonstrates that these four feminist theories about
society each turn out to be unsatisfactory as tools in social science
research, since they rest on strong ideological premises and
demonstrate a lack of internal consistency. Even though the theories
appear to be different, they display two common theoretical weaknesses
where one follows logically from the other. First of all, they all use
structuralistic and therefore deterministic assumptions about the
relationship between the individual and society, which leaves little
room for individual agency and thinking, which in turn leaves little
room for developing and changing society. The theories therefore
display a theoretical and empirical ignorance of the
multidimensionality of society and variance at the individual level.
Furthermore, the thesis discusses the political goals and action plans
that can be derived from the theories’ ideological and theoretical
content, and finds that where they aren’t Utopia-like, they are
unilaterally reduced to a monolithic identity or are normatively
underdeveloped and unclear. Finally, the relationship between science,
politics and ideology is problematized in a general way, and feminism
as science, politics and ideology in a specific way. To be able to
conduct social science research about gender relations–the author
claims–it isn’t useful to use the examined feminist theories, since
they are too ideological and theoretically underdeveloped. They should
instead be judged and valued the same way other normative and
ideological theories are, such as Marxism, especially when it comes to
their critical role in defining problems and acting as guides in
political practice.
The short version of what she’s saying is that using feminist theory
as the basis for conducting research, is about as useful as using
Marxist theory to conduct research. She also nullifies the standard
feminist reply to criticism (“what branch of feminism are you
criticizing?”) by demonstrating that each of the four branches of
feminist theory examined have the same theoretical weaknesses.
This confirms what I’ve long been suspecting: gender studies are not a
scientific discipline, they are a method for applying a certain
ideology onto whatever data you collect during your “research”. Still,
gender study departments around the world are allowed to teach
generation after generation of women that men are evil oppressors,
while hiding behind a respectable academic façade that they certainly
do not deserve. How long will this charade go on?
Pelle Billing is an M.D. who writes and lectures about men’s issues
and gender liberation beyond feminism
_ G O D _
news:f74288b5-dca1-4e0c...@m3g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:1RTSWjdfQA4J:www.cbsnews.com/stories/2009/12/23/ap/strange/main6015289.shtml+Woman+Calls+911+When+Husband+Refuses+to+Eat+Dinner&cd=2&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
>
>
> Woman Calls 911 When Husband Refuses To Eat Dinner
> ....woman has called 911 30 times over six months for
> non-emergency reasons, including a call to complain
>
> Police were dispatched to the residence and officer Paul Gonzales said
> police were told by her that "her husband did not want to eat his
> supper." A police report said the 53-year-old woman was also yelling
> "about things that happened two weeks ago."
No wonder pigs do not take seriously the genuine
warnings and complaints when real crime happen....
--
_____________________________________________________
I intend to last long enough to put out of business all COck-suckers
and other beneficiaries of the institutionalized slavery and genocide.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The army that will defeat terrorism doesn't wear uniforms, or drive
Humvees, or calls in air-strikes. It doesn't have a high command, or
high security, or a high budget. The army that can defeat terrorism
does battle quietly, clearing minefields and vaccinating children. It
undermines military dictatorships and military lobbyists. It subverts
sweatshops and special interests.Where people feel powerless, it
helps them organize for change, and where people are powerful, it
reminds them of their responsibility." ~~~~ Author Unknown ~~~~
___________________________________________________
--
Michael Snyder
> On Jan 6, 11:23 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/04/abuse-shelters-havens-for-feminis...
>>
>> Abuse Shelters: Havens for Feminist Thought Reform
>>
> This from a web site that ha sno sympathy for women who have been
> abused by their spouses.
And where's *YOUR* sympathy for *MEN* who have been
abused by their spouses.
>
> There is a good reason why males are not allowed to volunteer at
> battered women's shelters.
Yes -- it's called sexism.
Ross123
aged guy. But to the kind of
women that run battered womens' shelters, I am a danger. That makes me
feel young and virile again.
Ted
Yes, their attitudes to you control your ego. Be careful.
Greegor
Article > Abuse Shelters: Havens for Feminist Thought Reform
Moe > This from a web site that ha sno sympathy for women
Moe > who have been abused by their spouses.
Michael Snyder wrote
MS > And where's *YOUR* sympathy for *MEN*
MS > who have been abused by their spouses.
Moe > There is a good reason why males are not
Moe > allowed to volunteer at battered women's shelters.
MS > Yes -- it's called sexism.
Ross123 wrote
R > When I hang around most women, I'm just a boring,
R > overweight middle-aged guy. But to the kind of
R > women that run battered womens' shelters, I am
R > a danger. That makes me feel young and virile again.
Ted wrote
T > Yes, their attitudes to you control your ego. Be careful.
Moe can't get a date with either gender.
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ross123 wrote
>R > When I hang around most women, I'm just a boring,
>R > overweight middle-aged guy. But to the kind of
>R > women that run battered womens' shelters, I am
>R > a danger. That makes me feel young and virile again.
>
>Ted wrote
>T > Yes, their attitudes to you control your ego. =A0Be careful.
>
>Moe can't get a date with either gender.
What does your obsession with Moe have to do with Ted's comment?
A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott "Piggly
Wiggly" Hanson:
Greegor
R > When I hang around most women, I'm just a boring,
R > overweight middle-aged guy. But to the kind of
R > women that run battered womens' shelters, I am
R > a danger. That makes me feel young and virile again.
T > Yes, their attitudes to you control your ego. Be careful.
G > Moe can't get a date with either gender.
KBW > What does your obsession with Moe have to do with Ted's comment?
Has more to do with the Ross comment above Ted's.
KBW > A select number of items that really are
KBW > about Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson:
You alledge a CASE with no case number?
> 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
What's the case number?
But what else would you expect from this sad sack con artist?
Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8 1969 Two Felony Garage Burglar used teen
as accomplice
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.
Greegor
"Feminists will argue until they’re blue in the face that
women are victims of the Great Satanic Patriarchy."
That sounds like you, doesn't it, Moe?
womanGoddess
> http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/04/abuse-shelters-havens-for-feminis...
>
> women are victims of the Great Satanic Patriarchy."
>
> That sounds like you, doesn't it, Moe?
Nope.
Kent Wills
Doesn't sound like Moe to me. Maybe you could explain how your
drug addled brain came to the conclusion that caused you to pose that
she might?
A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott "Piggly
Wiggly" Hanson (either directly or through the same standards he
DEMANDS be held to others):
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Ross123 wrote
>R > When I hang around most women, I'm just a boring,
>R > overweight middle-aged guy. But to the kind of
>R > women that run battered womens' shelters, I am
>R > a danger. That makes me feel young and virile again.
>
>T > Yes, their attitudes to you control your ego. Be careful.
>
>G > Moe can't get a date with either gender.
>
>KBW > What does your obsession with Moe have to do with Ted's comment?
>
>Has more to do with the Ross comment above Ted's.
Yet you replied to Ted's post, as proved by the headers, and
posted your reply directly under your quote of Ted.
Care to try a different, perhaps plausible, lie?
>
>KBW > A select number of items that really are
>KBW > about Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson:
>
>You alledge a CASE with no case number?
We've been over this several times.
I'm sure your continued use and abuse of illegal drugs (unless
you lied) makes comprehension and retention difficult. Even so, by now
even you should be able to understand.
>
>> 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
>
>What's the case number?
How many times do you require the same question be answered the
same way? What is the magic number that will pierce the drug induced
fog that envelopes what passes for the gray matter in your head?
>
>But what else would you expect from this sad sack con artist?
Only that which you post below.
Since you openly admitted the information isn't about me, I ask,
again, why you post it as if it is about me?
I've asked this of you many times, but you've NEVER given an
answer. Is an honest answer to my question really so difficult for
you?
Greegor
"Feminists will argue until they’re blue in the face that
women are victims of the Great Satanic Patriarchy."
G > That sounds like you, doesn't it, Moe?
KBW > Doesn't sound like Moe to me.
Abuse Shelters: Havens for Feminist Thought Reform
1 Greegor Jan 6
2 womanGoddess Jan 8
Is your Girlfriend or Wife a Professional Victim?
3 Greegor Jan 9
4 womanGoddess Jan 9
5 Kent Wills Jan 9
Re: Abuse Shelters: Havens for Feminist Thought Reform
6 Kent Wills Jan 9
Woman Calls 911 When Husband Refuses To Eat Dinner
7 Greegor Jan 9
Research Dismisses the Validity of Feminist Gender Studies
8 Greegor Jan 10
Re: Woman Calls 911 When Husband Refuses To Eat Dinner
9 _ G O D _ Jan 10
Re: Abuse Shelters: Havens for Feminist Thought Reform
10 Michael Snyder Jan 12
11 Ross123 Jan 12
12 Ted Jan 12
13 Greegor Jan 12
14 Kent Wills Jan 13
15 Greegor Jan 14
16 Kent Wills Jan 15
17 Greegor Jan 14
18 womanGoddess Jan 14
19 Kent Wills Jan 15
KBW > Maybe you could explain how your drug
KBW > addled brain came to the conclusion
KBW > that caused you to pose that she might?
Kent Wills stock deception B.
----------------------------------------------------
Kent routinely says opponents are
A. Drunks
B. Druggies
C. Mentally Ill
D. Already conceded to Kent's argument
E. Question was already asked and answered ( ? )
It's as if Kent is an automation that is WAY too simple.
-----------------------------------------------------
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/04/abuse-shelters-havens-for-feminist-thou=
>ght-reform/
>
>"Feminists will argue until they=92re blue in the face that
>women are victims of the Great Satanic Patriarchy."
>
>G > That sounds like you, doesn't it, Moe?
>
>KBW > Doesn't sound like Moe to me.
[snip Greg's proving people have posted to this thread]
Um, Greg, you really should offer some sort of substantive reply.
Proving that people have posted to a particular thread, while maybe of
mild interest to some, does nothing more than further prove you were
being honest when you admitted you use and abuse illegal drugs (see
sig for the VERBATIM quote).
--a true story
$9850.00 $1500.00 $8350.00
Me: Hey, he used your standards.
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson: It's textbook psychopathic
reasoning.
Greg admitting his standards are psychopathic.
In MID
<2afdd85e-3b16-4829...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
Greg makes it clear he thinks reality TV shows are fantasy.
Greegor
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
[Context restored at no additional cost]
>>>KBW > Doesn't sound like Moe to me.
>>
>>[snip Greg's proving people have posted to this thread]
>>
>> Um, Greg, you really should offer some sort of substantive reply.
>>Proving that people have posted to a particular thread, while maybe of
>>mild interest to some, does nothing more than further prove you were
>>being honest when you admitted you use and abuse illegal drugs (see
>>sig for the VERBATIM quote).
>
>Kent, Do you think Maureen is a feminist?
I fail to see what that has to do with my comment. Care to
address the point I raised, or do you really NEED to run and HIDE from
it?
Yes, I understand that you are admitting, by YOUR standards, that
my claim is 100% correct. Still, I'd like a bit more, please.
Greegor
"Feminists will argue until they're blue in the face that
women are victims of the Great Satanic Patriarchy."
G > That sounds like you, doesn't it, Moe?
KBW > Doesn't sound like Moe to me.
G > Kent, Do you think Maureen is a feminist?
KBW > I fail to see what that has to do with my comment.
So?
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
[Context restored at no additional cost]
>http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/04/abuse-shelters-havens-for-feminist-thought-reform/
>
>"Feminists will argue until they're blue in the face that
>women are victims of the Great Satanic Patriarchy."
>
>G > That sounds like you, doesn't it, Moe?
>
>KBW > Doesn't sound like Moe to me.
>KBW> [snip Greg's proving people have posted to this thread]
>
>KBW> Um, Greg, you really should offer some sort of substantive reply.
>KBW> Proving that people have posted to a particular thread, while maybe of
>KBW> mild interest to some, does nothing more than further prove you were
>KBW> being honest when you admitted you use and abuse illegal drugs (see
>KBW> sig for the VERBATIM quote).
>
>G > Kent, Do you think Maureen is a feminist?
>
>KBW> I fail to see what that has to do with my comment. Care to
>KBW> address the point I raised, or do you really NEED to run and HIDE from
>KBW> it?
>KBW Yes, I understand that you are admitting, by YOUR standards, that
>KBW> my claim is 100% correct. Still, I'd like a bit more, please
>
>So?
So? You've made it clear that you view your own word as BS. As
such that you've admitted it, by your standards, isn't enough.
Feel free to continue doing the post edit, if your mental defects
demand such of you. I'll simply continue to restore the context of
out discussion.
Kent Wills
wrote:
> Feel free to continue doing the post edit, if your mental defects
>demand such of you. I'll simply continue to restore the context of
>out discussion.
Good grief! That paragraph is just painful!
It should read, "...doing the post edits, if..." and "...context
of our discussion."
More proof, if any were needed, that I should not be allowed to
proofread my own posts.
Greegor
"Feminists will argue until they're blue in the face that
women are victims of the Great Satanic Patriarchy."
G > That sounds like you, doesn't it, Moe?
KBW > Doesn't sound like Moe to me.
G > Kent, Do you think Maureen is a feminist?
Can't answer the question?
Paragraphs of ""speechifying"" are not
substitutes for a simple answer.
womanGoddess
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/04/...
>
> "Feminists will argue until they're blue in the face that
> women are victims of the Great Satanic Patriarchy."
(( rolls eyes)) This from a we site that is heavily biased against
feminism or women speaking their minds.
>
> G > That sounds like you, doesn't it, Moe?
Hardly. I don't consider Patriarchy as such to be " satanic" ( a
Christian term, BTW), but patriarchies have a tendency to treat women
as property and not much else.
>
> KBW > Doesn't sound like Moe to me.
>
> G > Kent, Do you think Maureen is a feminist?
>
> Can't answer the question?
More like Kent knows you are doing one o your cruddy childish games.
Greg.
If you wish to attack me, then address your attacks to me.
Unless you are like a lot of those " mens rights" guys who bitch
about women because deep down they know if a woman realized what
assholes they are, they would leave these worthless males and find
actual men to be with.
> Paragraphs of ""speechifying"" are not
> substitutes for a simple answer.
Like you do, gaggie?
Is " speechifying" a legitimate word?
womanGoddess
> On Fri, 8 Jan 2010 23:00:44 -0800 (PST), womanGoddess
>
NAMBLA is about " man-boy" " love (as those disgusting males see it)
and for once Larson actually told most of the truth, though for him
the real reason is that Larson hates gays and transgenders and
transvestites.
I should have made a reference to males seeing young girls as
sexually wanting them. The Lolita perverts.
> I expect there is an organization for such "men," but I haven't a
> clue what it's called.
" Barely legal" is a term I've heard used of male oriented porn where
the females supposedly just turned " legal" age.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita_(term)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia
A few cult leader types ( like The Family) have encouraged such
disturbing displays of female children dancing provocatively or even
advocated adult male sex with the children ( Tony Alamo, for example).
So it seems to be prevalent in certain so-called straight males "
sexuality". They call the children nymphets.
This might be a term for such males:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolicon
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
Know your scum--- http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>
>
>
womanGoddess
> womanGoddess wrote:
> > On Jan 6, 11:23 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/04/abuse-shelters-havens-for-feminis...
>
> >> Abuse Shelters: Havens for Feminist Thought Reform
>
> > This from a web site that ha sno sympathy for women who have been
> > abused by their spouses.
>
> And where's *YOUR* sympathy for *MEN* who have been
> abused by their spouses.
Where's YOUR sympathy for the women abused by males?
Most abuse is males attacking females. Most rape is males assaulting
females. These are the FACTS. I acknowledge that there are cases of
men being assaulted by their spouses, but before you do your penis-
jerk reaction, maybe you should look at the actual statistics first.
One of the reasons why " anti-misandry" " men's rights" males are
not considered credible by the public is that most people understand
the facts of spousal abuse and rape and that a woman abusing her male
spouse is rare, comparatively speaking. While the males whine and
bitch about " feminazis" and how supposedly evil feminism is, seems to
me they actually fear strong-willed women who are independent from
males, them in particular.
I am more of an egalitarian. Some of the feminist writings over the
years are IMO too extreme. But then if they were moderate, no one
would listen.
However some of what the feminists have talked about later turns out
to be factual. Like the "date rape" problem. That was discussed in
feminist circles years before the mainstream public realized that date
rape actually existed and that some men were deliberately drugging
women's drinks so the women could not resist when the males raped
them. The fact that some drugs also had a side effect of memory loss
helped these disgusting predators. Then their shitty practice was
exposed and a number of them were successfully charged and prosecuted.
Now date rape is seen for what it is, a disgusting predatory act.
I feel sympathy for ALL victims, male or female.
But I refuse to accept the he-male, bow to the penis type of
mentality.
>
>
>
> > There is a good reason why males are not allowed to volunteer at
> > battered women's shelters.
>
> Yes -- it's called sexism.
I explained why. Its a matter of comfort and trust. Had you been
actually unbiased about this you would understand that it is not
sexism at all.
You snipping out my explanation speaks well enough abut your view on
this.
Tell me, why should males who abuse be allowed access to their
victims in battered women's shelters?
Or won't you admit that that's the real reason behind your "sexism"
comment?
Moe
Goddess worshipper
womanGoddess
Being around women who were victims if abuse and rape make you feel
young and virile?
Gee you are such a babe magnet right?
(( Disgusted sigh))
Thank the Goddess there are men who understand and sympathize with
women who have been raped and abused.
Moe
Goddess worshipper
womanGoddess
> http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/04/abuse-shelters-havens-for-feminis...
>
>
> Moe > This from a web site that ha sno sympathy for women
> Moe > who have been abused by their spouses.
>
> Michael Snyder wrote
> MS > And where's *YOUR* sympathy for *MEN*
> MS > who have been abused by their spouses.
>
> Moe > There is a good reason why males are not
> Moe > allowed to volunteer at battered women's shelters.
>
> MS > Yes -- it's called sexism.
>
> Ross123 wrote
> R > When I hang around most women, I'm just a boring,
> R > overweight middle-aged guy. But to the kind of
> R > women that run battered womens' shelters, I am
> R > a danger. That makes me feel young and virile again.
>
> Ted wrote
> T > Yes, their attitudes to you control your ego. Be careful.
>
> Moe can't get a date with either gender.
Who should I date when I have a boyfriend greg?
Moe
Greegor
Kent stepped into this pretending to
know your flavor of feminism.
Yet he can't answer the simple question
of whether or not you are a feminist? LOL
womanGoddess
Because I don't discuss such things often Greg.
Contrary to your obsessions about me and Kent, we do not exchange
emails very often. Even after all these years online, he does not
know a lot about me and vice versa.
He would no more know what " flavor" of feminist I am than I would
know what sect of Christianity he is.
Simple enough for you, retard?
As I said if you want to ask about me, ask me.
Greegor
"Feminists will argue until they're blue in the face that
women are victims of the Great Satanic Patriarchy."
Moe > (( rolls eyes)) This from a we site that is
Moe > heavily biased against feminism or
Moe > women speaking their minds.
Think about your complaint!
Wouldn't Mens News daily be the WRONG
place for feminists to speak their minds?
Right before you have your big encounter
with the lions, rub steak all over yourself.
G > That sounds like you, doesn't it, Moe?
Moe > Hardly. I don't consider Patriarchy as
Moe > such to be " satanic" ( a Christian
Moe > term, BTW), but patriarchies have a
Moe > tendency to treat women as property
Moe > and not much else.
KBW > Doesn't sound like Moe to me.
G > Kent, Do you think Maureen is a feminist?
G > Can't answer the question?
Moe > More like Kent knows you are doing
Moe > one o your cruddy childish games.
Moe > Greg.
Moe > If you wish to attack me, then
Moe > address your attacks to me.
Moe >
Moe > Unless you are like a lot of those
Moe > " mens rights" guys who bitch
Moe > about women because deep down
Moe > they know if a woman realized what
Moe > assholes they are, they would leave
Moe > these worthless males and find
Moe > actual men to be with.
G > Paragraphs of ""speechifying"" are not
G > substitutes for a simple answer.
Moe > Like you do, gaggie?
Moe > Is " speechifying" a legitimate word?
It was ""speechifying"" and yes, in some quarters.
http://www.google.com/search?q=speechifying+definition
http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/speechifying
"especially at excessive length."
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/Speechifying
G > Kent stepped into this pretending to
G > know your flavor of feminism.
G >
G > Yet he can't answer the simple question
G > of whether or not you are a feminist? LOL
Moe > Because I don't discuss such things
Moe > often Greg.
There, there, let it out, wouldn't want you to be repressed!
But why do you smell like steak?
Moe > Contrary to your obsessions about me
Moe > and Kent, we do not exchange emails
Moe > very often. Even after all these years
Moe > online, he does not know a lot about
Moe > me and vice versa.
Moe >
Moe > He would no more know what " flavor"
Moe > of feminist I am than I would know
Moe > what sect of Christianity he is.
My point exactly.
Kent jumped in pretending he had some
massive insight, and I knew he did not.
Kent never does.
Moe > Simple enough for you, retard?
That's Kent's insecurity, not mine.
But he INSISTS he's not insecure about it.
And he doesn't need an organization like
Mensa to validate himself somehow! LOL
Moe > As I said if you want to ask about me, ask me.
I did! It was originally directed at you!
For some reason Kent felt he had to ""protect"" you.
Now WHY would he feel the need to do that? LOL
What kind of feminist are you, Moe!
Define what you consider to be a "real man".
Does he have to LOOK like Tom Welling? LOL
Sensitive New Age Guys
Greegor
> http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/04/abuse-shelters-havens-for-feminis...
>
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mqb1tMsNj9M
The Man Song
Grizzlie Antagonist
> On Jan 12, 4:41 pm, Michael Snyder <msny...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > womanGoddess wrote:
> > > On Jan 6, 11:23 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > >>http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/04/abuse-shelters-havens-for-feminis...
>
> > >> Abuse Shelters: Havens for Feminist Thought Reform
>
> > > This from a web site that ha sno sympathy for women who have been
> > > abused by their spouses.
>
> > And where's *YOUR* sympathy for *MEN* who have been
> > abused by their spouses.
>
> Where's YOUR sympathy for the women abused by males?
Let 'em eat cake.
> Most abuse is males attacking females. Most rape is males assaulting
> females. These are the FACTS. I acknowledge that there are cases of
> men being assaulted by their spouses, but before you do your penis-
> jerk reaction,
When a male victim objects to being assaulted by his spouse, is that a
"penis jerk reaction"?
> maybe you should look at the actual statistics first.
>
> One of the reasons why " anti-misandry" " men's rights" males are
> not considered credible by the public is that most people understand
> the facts of spousal abuse and rape and that a woman abusing her male
> spouse is rare, comparatively speaking.
Are you trying to popularize it?
> While the males whine and
> bitch about " feminazis" and how supposedly evil feminism is, seems to
> me they actually fear strong-willed women who are independent from
> males, them in particular.
Strong-willed women SUCK! But there is no such thing as a woman who
is independent from men.
> I am more of an egalitarian. Some of the feminist writings over the
> years are IMO too extreme.
Would you call those "vagina jerk reactions"?
> But then if they were moderate, no one
> would listen.
Ah! And if men did not sometimes engage in what you call "penis jerk
reactions", no one would listen.
> However some of what the feminists have talked about later turns out
> to be factual. Like the "date rape" problem. That was discussed in
> feminist circles years before the mainstream public realized that date
> rape actually existed and that some men were deliberately drugging
> women's drinks so the women could not resist when the males raped
> them.
Wonderful! Wonderful! This should be sold over the counter!
> The fact that some drugs also had a side effect of memory loss
> helped these disgusting predators. Then their shitty practice was
> exposed and a number of them were successfully charged and prosecuted.
How could the testimony have been competent if there was memory loss?
Sounds to me like a denial of due process.
> Now date rape is seen for what it is, a disgusting predatory act.
>
> I feel sympathy for ALL victims, male or female.
No, you don't. You think that men should be thrown into meat
grinders.
> But I refuse to accept the he-male, bow to the penis type of
> mentality.
Why?
> > > There is a good reason why males are not allowed to volunteer at
> > > battered women's shelters.
>
> > Yes -- it's called sexism.
>
> I explained why. Its a matter of comfort and trust.
Actually, it's because women fear strong-willed men who are
independent from females, them in particular.
> Had you been
> actually unbiased about this you would understand that it is not
> sexism at all.
You have a point there. And I would never vote for a woman. I would
never hire a woman. It's a matter of comfort and trust. Once you
become unbiased about this, you realize that this isn't sexism on my
part at all.
> You snipping out my explanation speaks well enough abut your view on
> this.
>
> Tell me, why should males who abuse be allowed access to their
> victims in battered women's shelters?
Because love is wonderful the second time around.
> Or won't you admit that that's the real reason behind your "sexism"
> comment?
>
> Moe
> Goddess worshipper
What about Larry and Curly? What are their religious preferences?
Greegor
wrote:
> On Jan 26, 11:43 am, womanGoddess <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Jan 12, 4:41 pm, Michael Snyder <msny...@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> > > womanGoddess wrote:
> > > > On Jan 6, 11:23 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > >>http://mensnewsdaily.com/2010/01/04/abuse-shelters-havens-for-feminis...
>
> > > >> Abuse Shelters: Havens for Feminist Thought Reform
>
> > > > This from a web site that ha sno sympathy for women who have been
> > > > abused by their spouses.
>
> > > And where's *YOUR* sympathy for *MEN* who have been
> > > abused by their spouses.
>
> > Where's YOUR sympathy for the women abused by males?
>
> Let 'em eat cake.
>
> > Most abuse is males attacking females. Most rape is males assaulting
> > females. These are the FACTS. I acknowledge that there are cases of
> > men being assaulted by their spouses, but before you do your penis-
> > jerk reaction,
>
> When a male victim objects to being assaulted by his spouse, is that a
> "penis jerk reaction"?
>
> > maybe you should look at the actual statistics first.
Moe > One of the reasons why " anti-misandry"
Moe > " men's rights" males are not considered
Moe > credible by the public is that most people
Moe > understand the facts of spousal abuse
Moe > and rape and that a woman abusing her
Moe > male spouse is rare, comparatively speaking.
GA > Are you trying to popularize it?
> > While the males whine and
> > bitch about " feminazis" and how supposedly evil feminism is, seems to
> > me they actually fear strong-willed women who are independent from
> > males, them in particular.
>
> Strong-willed women SUCK! But there is no such thing as a woman who
> is independent from men.
>
> > I am more of an egalitarian. Some of the feminist writings over the
> > years are IMO too extreme.
>
> Would you call those "vagina jerk reactions"?
>
> > But then if they were moderate, no one
> > would listen.
>
> Ah! And if men did not sometimes engage in what you call "penis jerk
> reactions", no one would listen.
>
> > However some of what the feminists have talked about later turns out
> > to be factual. Like the "date rape" problem. That was discussed in
> > feminist circles years before the mainstream public realized that date
> > rape actually existed and that some men were deliberately drugging
> > women's drinks so the women could not resist when the males raped
> > them.
GA > Wonderful! Wonderful!
GA > This should be sold over the counter!
Moe > The fact that some drugs also had a
Moe > side effect of memory loss helped
Moe > these disgusting predators. Then
Moe > their shitty practice was exposed
Moe > and a number of them were
Moe > successfully charged and prosecuted.
Notice the invective and scatology?
Moe's very being depends on a "fail" or a
boogie man to vilify. I'm guessing that
she urgently NEEDS others to work up
a good hate about to distract her from
her own self loathing.
GA > How could the testimony have been
GA > competent if there was memory loss?
GA > Sounds to me like a denial of due process.
Moe > Now date rape is seen for what it
Moe > is, a disgusting predatory act.
It's a hotbed for false accusations and
a problem you obsess about
but will never have, Moe.
Moe > I feel sympathy for ALL victims, male or female.
Liar.
GA > No, you don't. You think that men should
GA > be thrown into meat grinders.
Moe's a 50 year old misfit who lives in her
Daddy Frank's house in Dardanelle Arkansas,
She can't get a date with either gender.
She fantasizes about Tom Welling and
pretends that her reading of true-crime novels
makes her a criminologist.
Moe > But I refuse to accept the he-male,
Moe > bow to the penis type of mentality.
GA > Why?
Moe > There is a good reason why males are
Moe > not allowed to volunteer at battered
Moe > women's shelters.
GA > Yes -- it's called sexism.
Moe > I explained why. Its a matter of comfort and trust.
GA > Actually, it's because women fear
GA > strong-willed men who are independent
GA > from females, them in particular.
Moe > Had you been actually unbiased about this you
Moe > would understand that it is not sexism at all.
GA > You have a point there. And I would never vote
GA > for a woman. I would never hire a woman. It's
GA > a matter of comfort and trust. Once you
GA > become unbiased about this, you realize that
GA > this isn't sexism on my part at all.
ROFL!
> > You snipping out my explanation speaks well enough abut your view on
> > this.
Moe > Tell me, why should males who abuse
Moe > be allowed access to their victims
Moe > in battered women's shelters?
GA > Because love is wonderful the second time around.
> > Or won't you admit that that's the real reason behind your "sexism"
> > comment?
>
> > Moe
> > Goddess worshipper
GA > What about Larry and Curly? What are their religious
preferences?
Sensitive New Age Guys
THE BORG
No such thing.
Woman whore or woman Devil yes.
Goddess? HA HA HA HA. Your woman vanity and conceit and
ego getting out of control?
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
[Context restored]
>>> Feel free to continue doing the post edit, if your mental defects
>>>demand such of you. I'll simply continue to restore the context of
>>>out discussion.
>>
>> Good grief! That paragraph is just painful!
>> It should read, "...doing the post edits, if..." and "...context
>>of our discussion."
>> More proof, if any were needed, that I should not be allowed to
>>proofread my own posts.
>
>Can't answer the question?
There was and is no question in the post to which you replied. As
you can see, I've removed your post edit and replaced that which was
in the original.
Please point out where in the post to which you replied a
question can be seen. If you'd rather admit your psychological NEED
to be dishonest took over again, that is acceptable to me.
>Paragraphs of ""speechifying"" are not
Double quotation marks are not scare quotes and still mean
nothing. You may LIE and claim otherwise, if you need to.
That aside, my pointing out that the paragraph I wrote is very
poorly written can't, by any mentally sound person, be seen as
speechifying.
YMMV, of course.
>substitutes for a simple answer.
That's almost funny. I point out how poorly I wrote a paragraph,
and you think it means something other than what it does. Either that
or you have offered more PROOF that you are psychologically UNABLE to
be honest, except by accident or force.
You'll note that I restored the context of my post, just as I
stated I would do when your NEED to be dishonest forced you to LIE and
remove the totality of my post and insert that which you KNOW wasn't
there.
Once again you offer me the chance to PROVE you are
psychologically UNABLE to be honest, unless you make a mistake or are
somehow forced.
You're welcome.
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> > You might as well post NAMBLA propaganda Greg.
>>
>> If I understand correctly, and frightening enough, my source is
>> an old episode of "Bob Lar$on," NAMBLA is about adult males and little
>> boys. Greg has made it very clear he likes pre-pubescent girls.
>
> NAMBLA is about " man-boy" " love (as those disgusting males see it)
>and for once Larson actually told most of the truth, though for him
>the real reason is that Larson hates gays and transgenders and
>transvestites.
He only mentioned it because, he claimed, someone was able to
guess the code for BLM's answering machine and changed the outgoing
message. Rather than hearing whatever was supposed to be heard,
callers got something about NAMBLA.
>
> I should have made a reference to males seeing young girls as
>sexually wanting them. The Lolita perverts.
By Greg's own standards, it was PROVED he molested Lisa's little
girl. Reference Greg's possition on the puppet bear for the PROOF of
Greg's standards on claims made by CPS caseworkers.
>
>
>> I expect there is an organization for such "men," but I haven't a
>> clue what it's called.
>
>" Barely legal" is a term I've heard used of male oriented porn where
>the females supposedly just turned " legal" age.
If they are of legal age, the guys wouldn't be pedophile, would
they? Possibly immoral, depending of the their age.
Pedophiles are sexually attracted to pre, maybe very early
pubescent children.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita_(term)
If the term came from the story, I think the girls would be too
old for Greg.
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia
Such children would be too old for Greg, if his posts are an
accurate indication.
Kent Wills
You asked if it sounded like Moe, implying that it might. I
stated, accurately so, that it did not sound like Moe to me.
>
>Yet he can't answer the simple question
>of whether or not you are a feminist? LOL
Is there really a simple answer to such a question?
If the answer is either yes or no, you'd have more questions in a
pathetic attempt to distract from the truth. Hardly simple, now is
it?
Repeating the question endlessly without giving your own views is
VERY deceptive, Greg. But then, you can't be honest, unless you make
a mistake or are forced.
If you think Moe is a feminist speak right up and defend your
position instead of your usual game playing. What makes you think,
specifically, she's a feminist, and would it stand up in court?
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
[...]
>Moe > Contrary to your obsessions about me
>Moe > and Kent, we do not exchange emails
>Moe > very often. Even after all these years
>Moe > online, he does not know a lot about
>Moe > me and vice versa.
>Moe >
>Moe > He would =A0no more know what " flavor"
>Moe > of feminist I am than I would know
>Moe > what sect of Christianity he is.
>
>My point exactly.
>Kent jumped in pretending he had some
>massive insight, and I knew he did not.
>Kent never does.
Outside of your deeply rooted psychological NEED to be dishonest,
I made no such pretence.
You even quoted my comment, which PROVES you're lying.
Do you recall this?
KBW > Doesn't sound like Moe to me.
I understand your mind operates at about a fourth grade level, on
your good days, but even you should be able to see how I'm not
presenting a fact claim.
I'll try to bring it down to a level you can understand. I don't
hold out much hope for success, since it's been shown that I have a
hard time reaching down to your level.
The description you gave does not fit Moe to the degree I know
her. My statement makes this clear, while allowing for the
possibility that it could actually fit her very well.
>
>Moe > Simple enough for you, retard?
>
>That's Kent's insecurity, not mine.
>But he INSISTS he's not insecure about it.
How, in reality, does my pointing out that the definition you
offered does not sound like Moe to me indicate any insecurities. How
does Moe trying to make it as simple as you need to understand
indicate any insecurities I may have?
Please be specific. If you would rather admit you're lying,
still, that is acceptable.
>
>And he doesn't need an organization like
>Mensa to validate himself somehow! LOL
I don't. Deal with it.
>
>Moe > As I said if you want to ask about me, ask me.
>
>I did! It was originally directed at you!
>For some reason Kent felt he had to ""protect"" you.
Double quotation marks are not scare quotes and still mean
nothing at all.
Your lack of understanding this simple premise aside, I hold no
such feeling.
Again, my goal is to further PROVE you to be the pathological
liar and extremely PRO CPS shill you are. If doing so benefits, or
even protects, anyone else, that is a bonus.
Why are you so UNABLE to understand this?
>
>Now WHY would he feel the need to do that? LOL
You're under the dishonest impression that I hold such a feeling.
Why do you constantly PROVE you can't be honest, unless you make
a mistake or are forced? Serious question.
>
>What kind of feminist are you, Moe!
I think she's made herself quite clear on this point. That you
don't like her response doesn't mean she didn't give one.
>
>Define what you consider to be a "real man".
>
>Does he have to LOOK like Tom Welling? LOL
If I understand Moe correctly, he doesn't need to, but it
wouldn't hurt.
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Sensitive New Age Guys
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DMqb1tMsNj9M
>
From the site:
The URL contained a malformed video ID.
Way to go, stupid.
>The Man Song
>
>http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3DIN8Bw5qhA_4
The URL contained a malformed video ID.
Way to go, stupid.
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> Kent stepped into this pretending to
>> know your flavor of feminism.
>>
>> Yet he can't answer the simple question
>> of whether or not you are a feminist? =A0 LOL
>
> Because I don't discuss such things often Greg.
> Contrary to your obsessions about me and Kent, we do not exchange
>emails very often. Even after all these years online, he does not
>know a lot about me and vice versa.
>
> He would no more know what " flavor" of feminist I am than I would
>know what sect of Christianity he is.
You've just exposed another of Greg's MANY lies. If not for the
FACT that Greg is psychologically UNABLE to be honest, unless he makes
a mistake or is forced, some humor could be seen in his constant
lying.
>
> Simple enough for you, retard?
>
> As I said if you want to ask about me, ask me.
Your posts certainly give cause to believe you are a feminist,
though not the type described in Greg's post.
Greg's psychological NEED to be dishonest has forced him to claim
that which he KNOWS is not true. To be fair, he can't help himself,
and all we can do is expose each lie he presents until such time as he
is able and willing to get the help he NEEDS.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>> Simple enough for you, retard?
>>
>> As I said if you want to ask about me, ask me.
>
> Your posts certainly give cause to believe you are a feminist,
>though not the type described in Greg's post.
> Greg's psychological NEED to be dishonest has forced him to claim
>that which he KNOWS is not true. To be fair, he can't help himself,
>and all we can do is expose each lie he presents until such time as he
>is able and willing to get the help he NEEDS.
I intended to include this in my post, but failed to do so.
Please forgive my momentary laps of concentration.
Regarding the subject:
I'm far too old for Greg. While he has offered extremely weak
evidence that he could go for males, I'm so far past puberty, Greg
would have NO romantic or sexual interest.
My ego is not bruised.
However, Greg has offered PROOF that I am the single most
important person to him on Usenet.
First we have his behavior when he realized I had left ASCPS. He
looked for me all over Usenet, including groups I hadn't visited for
the previous 12 months or so.
Second we have his LIE that he was/is a member of alt.friends.
Barry specifically BANNED him from membership. Greg then LIED and
claimed that since he can post to the group, he is a member. His NEED
for my attention was and is so great, he had to LIE and claim to be a
member of at least one of the groups where I am one.
Third is how he gets upset when I choose not to post for a few
days.
Finally, there is how he is so obsessed with me that he posts
information that he's openly admitted isn't about me as if it is. That
the information is about three different people named Kent Wills, or
that my name in real life isn't Kent doesn't matter. He MUST post it.
On Usenet, and maybe in real life (he strongly implied he would
be present for the phantom revocation hearing only to chicken out when
he realized he would have to face the truth that I'm not the person he
used to claim), there is no one more important to Greg than me.
I don't believe I am worthy of such devotion, but it's very clear
Greg does.
If only I had a Lar$on class ego, it might mean something more to
me.
womanGoddess
There are Goddess worshippers. We exist. Your disbelief doesn't
change it.
womanGoddess
> On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 11:22:42 -0800 (PST), womanGoddess
>
>
> [...]
>
> >> > You might as well post NAMBLA propaganda Greg.
>
> >> If I understand correctly, and frightening enough, my source is
> >> an old episode of "Bob Lar$on," NAMBLA is about adult males and little
> >> boys. Greg has made it very clear he likes pre-pubescent girls.
>
> > NAMBLA is about " man-boy" " love (as those disgusting males see it)
> >and for once Larson actually told most of the truth, though for him
> >the real reason is that Larson hates gays and transgenders and
> >transvestites.
>
> He only mentioned it because, he claimed, someone was able to
> guess the code for BLM's answering machine and changed the outgoing
> message. Rather than hearing whatever was supposed to be heard,
> callers got something about NAMBLA.
I remember that incident as told by Lar$on, OC. That was when BLM had
that "compassion connection" computer bank " referral service" con for
money act. I don't know who did the prank, but I can guess how it was
done. Bet that the default password for the answering machine Larson
used was still active or the password was way easy to guess.
Considering the era when this happened, I can see how a weenie whistle
-armed phone hacker could do it.
Larson aired the recording on his radio show. I thought it was funny,
a simple prank, really harmless.
>
>
>
> > I should have made a reference to males seeing young girls as
> >sexually wanting them. The Lolita perverts.
>
> By Greg's own standards, it was PROVED he molested Lisa's little
> girl. Reference Greg's possition on the puppet bear for the PROOF of
> Greg's standards on claims made by CPS caseworkers.
I have no doubt that Greg was prepping Lisa's daughter, testing her,
to see what he can get away with before he went on to rape the child.
>
>
>
> >> I expect there is an organization for such "men," but I haven't a
> >> clue what it's called.
>
> >" Barely legal" is a term I've heard used of male oriented porn where
> >the females supposedly just turned " legal" age.
>
> If they are of legal age, the guys wouldn't be pedophile, would
> they? Possibly immoral, depending of the their age.
> Pedophiles are sexually attracted to pre, maybe very early
> pubescent children.
Pederasts are attracted to young teens.
>
>
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita_(term)
>
> If the term came from the story, I think the girls would be too
> old for Greg.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia
>
> Such children would be too old for Greg, if his posts are an
> accurate indication.
Greg likes them young and weak.
Greegor
Extra Characters "3D" crept in there right after the = mark
and show up in the ""original"" but not when Google displays
message or when you click the hyperlink in Google.
Attempted to remove any invisible "3D" character.
Hex 3d is the equal character = in ASCII.
Sensitive New Age Guys
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> > NAMBLA is about " man-boy" " love (as those disgusting males see it)
>> >and for once Larson actually told most of the truth, though for him
>> >the real reason is that Larson hates gays and transgenders and
>> >transvestites.
>>
>> He only mentioned it because, he claimed, someone was able to
>> guess the code for BLM's answering machine and changed the outgoing
>> message. =A0Rather than hearing whatever was supposed to be heard,
>> callers got something about NAMBLA.
>
> I remember that incident as told by Lar$on, OC. That was when BLM had
>that "compassion connection" computer bank " referral service" con for
>money act. I don't know who did the prank, but I can guess how it was
>done. Bet that the default password for the answering machine Larson
>used was still active or the password was way easy to guess.
>Considering the era when this happened, I can see how a weenie whistle
>-armed phone hacker could do it.
At one time, the codes were nothing more than two digits tapped on
a touch tone phone. One set by the manufacture, the other chosen by
the user.
I had one that was set with 5, then I chose the second number. If
Lar$on had a similar answering machine, figuring out the code was
simply a matter of time.
>
> Larson aired the recording on his radio show. I thought it was funny,
>a simple prank, really harmless.
I had forgotten that he aired it.
I can recall bits and pieces of it. Something about they can
call back, but only collect.
>
>>
>> > I should have made a reference to males seeing young girls as
>> >sexually wanting them. The Lolita perverts.
>>
>> By Greg's own standards, it was PROVED he molested Lisa's little
>> girl. =A0Reference Greg's possition on the puppet bear for the PROOF of
>> Greg's standards on claims made by CPS caseworkers.
>
> I have no doubt that Greg was prepping Lisa's daughter, testing her,
>to see what he can get away with before he went on to rape the child.
It wouldn't surprise me at all if this were proved to be true.
>
>>
>>
>>
>> >> I expect there is an organization for such "men," but I haven't a
>> >> clue what it's called.
>>
>> >" Barely legal" is a term I've heard used of male oriented porn where
>> >the females supposedly just turned " legal" age.
>>
>> If they are of legal age, the guys wouldn't be pedophile, would
>> they? Possibly immoral, depending of the their age.
>> Pedophiles are sexually attracted to pre, maybe very early
>> pubescent children.
>
> Pederasts are attracted to young teens.
>
I'm clearly out of touch.
>>
>>
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lolita_(term)
>>
>> If the term came from the story, I think the girls would be too
>> old for Greg.
>>
>> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ephebophilia
>>
>> Such children would be too old for Greg, if his posts are an
>> accurate indication.
>
> Greg likes them young and weak.
Especially weak.
Firemonkey
Newsgroups: alt.support.child-protective-services
Subject: Motion for Relief from Inappropriate Services
Date: 9 Apr 2002 14:27:35 -0700
Organization: http://groups.google.com/
Lines: 570
Message-ID: <35120b16.0204...@posting.google.com>
NNTP-Posting-Host: 63.230.159.88
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: posting.google.com 1018387655 28454 127.0.0.1 (9 Apr 2002
21:27:35 GMT)
X-Complaints-To: groups...@google.com
NNTP-Posting-Date: 9 Apr 2002 21:27:35 GMTPsychological Evaluation
snip chester's bs
Greg went to see Doctor DHSISGOODFORME for one hour, for a
Psychological Evaluation, knowing what had been INPUT was a laundry
list of 4 points. The list was:
needs to be the victim
domestic violence
controlling
anger management issues
It seemed odd that 10 hours were set aside with the scheduler for
anger management before there was even a diagnosis. The list raised
some concerns about violations of 5th amendment rights, but it was
small enough that Greg went. Then after one hour, Dr.DHSISGOODFORME
didn't think he had enough to "go on" and asked for a release to get
more documentary background from DHS. This took 2 or three months,
and this INPUT was an inch thick stack of documents
snip more of chester's bs
What was in that 1 inch thick file? How did it come to be 1 inch
thick?
Firemonkey
chester, I mean grag?
Greegor
explain dan's claim that he was investigated for Child Abuse
25+ times and founded 5 of those times, once for
child sexual abuse?
Wouldn't that number of cases imply a more
""professional"" standing than mine?
And do you think the below statements
indicate dan was playing DOCTOR?
Feb 2002
Dan Sullivan wrote "I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93."
[...]
'The "credible evidence" was my (3 yo) daughter's statement that "My
daddy touches me with the puppet bear in the toilet." '
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
April 2004 Dan Sullivan wrote
"My daddy touched me with the puppet bear in the toilet."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/d15f8e338226b780
July 2007 Dan Sullivan wrote
"My daddy touches me with the puppet bear in the toilet."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/msg/2d04c26b08f9f2b9
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Firemonkey, If I'm a Professional Victim, then how do you
>explain dan's claim that he was investigated for Child Abuse
>25+ times and founded 5 of those times, once for
>child sexual abuse?
What does that have to do with the 1 inch think file that was
used, in additon to other material, as a means to help PROVE you have
a psychological NEED to be a victim?
>
>Wouldn't that number of cases imply a more
>""professional"" standing than mine?
Are you claiming that, like you, Dan has a 1 inch think file that
would cause a fully trained and educated psychologist to conclude he
has a psychological NEED to be a victim? This accusation has not been
made before.
>
>And do you think the below statements
>indicate dan was playing DOCTOR?
They help PROVE that you accept ANY claim made yb a CPS
caseworker as 100% valid 100% of the time. Just like the good little
CPS Shill you've been PROVED to be.
So, Greg, what was in that 1 inch thick file? How did it come to
be 1 inch thick? Will you answer the questions or further PROVE you
hate honesty in all its forms?
Firemonkey
> Firemonkey, If I'm a Professional Victim, then how do you
> explain dan's claim that he was investigated for Child Abuse
> 25+ times and founded 5 of those times, once for
> child sexual abuse?
>
> Wouldn't that number of cases imply a more
> ""professional"" standing than mine?
>
> And do you think the below statements
> indicate dan was playing DOCTOR?
>
> Feb 2002
> Dan Sullivan wrote "I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93."
> [...]
> 'The "credible evidence" was my (3 yo) daughter's statement that "My
>
> April 2004 Dan Sullivan wrote
>
> July 2007 Dan Sullivan wrote
Not at all Chester. You lie by ommission by leaving out the rest of
the story.
You and Dan are not comparable. You came here and bragged about
abusing Lisa'a daughter, you confessed the ways you abused her. You
attempted to get sympathy from people who had been falsely accused.
You condemed yourself.
Dan is a fine man, an excellent father and a gentelman.
You are a speck of feces.
Get over it.
Greegor
G > how do you explain Dan's claim that he was
G > investigated for Child Abuse 25+ times and
G > founded 5 of those times, once for
G > child sexual abuse?
KBW > What does that have to do with the 1 inch
KBW > think [thick] file that was used, in additon
KBW > to other material, [ like what? ] as a means
KBW > to help PROVE you have a psychological
KBW > NEED to be a victim?
A one inch stack of caseworker bullshit as
input into a psych eval is not proof of anything
except an attempt to RIG a psych eval.
I got a state MSW to testify that such
INPUT would indeed taint a psych eval.
CPS failed to show any basis that I should.
G > Wouldn't that number of cases imply a more
G > ""professional"" standing than mine?
KBW > Are you claiming that, like you, Dan has
KBW > a 1 inch think [thick] file
With Dan's 25+ investigations, 5 foundeds,
1 for sexual abuse? How big do you think
the stack would be, Kent?
KBW > that would cause a fully trained and
KBW > educated psychologist to conclude
KBW > he has a psychological NEED to be
KBW > a victim? This accusation has not
KBW > been made before.
With Dan's 25+ investigations it probably has.
The unqualified caseworker who tried that
on me was forced to eat his words.
G > And do you think the below statements
G > indicate dan was playing DOCTOR?
KBW > They help PROVE that you accept ANY
KBW > claim made yb a CPS caseworker as
KBW > 100% valid 100% of the time. Just like
KBW > the good little CPS Shill you've been
KBW > PROVED to be.
Ventrification, manufactured by wind, as in Kent Wills lies.
KBW > So, Greg, what was in that 1 inch thick file?
KBW > How did it come to be 1 inch thick?
CPS agencies are a BUREAUCRACY.
KBW > Will you answer the questions or further
KBW > PROVE you hate honesty in all its forms?
Kent Wills, ever the con artist.
FM > Not at all Chester. You lie by ommission
FM > by leaving out the rest of the story.
CPS tried that "tip of the iceberg" ruse on
somebody who was helping us, trying to
scare her off. It failed because we had
already shown her ALL of the agency
documents and ALL of the agency's
filings in court. If there was something
we had withheld then it would have been
in the documents the agency filed.
When she thought about it she became
angry about the rotten agency tricks
and later testified in our favor.
FM > You and Dan are not comparable.
FM > You came here and bragged about
FM > abusing Lisa'a daughter,
Bragged?
Like when Dan bragged that he had 25+
Child Protective investigations and 5 foundeds,
one founded for child sexual abuse?
That kind of bragging?
FM > you confessed the ways you
FM > abused her.
I confessed to things your hyena pack
interpreted as abuse.
FM > You attempted to get sympathy from
FM > people who had been falsely accused.
FM > You condemed yourself.
FM > Dan is a fine man, an excellent father and a gentelman.
FM > You are a speck of feces.
FM > Get over it.
How do you explain away these quotes?
Was it Dan bragging?
Did he condemn himself?
Where IS your buddy, Dan anyway?
Feb 2002
Dan Sullivan wrote "I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93."
[...]
'The "credible evidence" was my (3 yo) daughter's statement that "My
daddy touches me with the puppet bear in the toilet." '
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
April 2004 Dan Sullivan wrote
"My daddy touched me with the puppet bear in the toilet."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/d15f8e338226b780
July 2007 Dan Sullivan wrote
"My daddy touches me with the puppet bear in the toilet."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/msg/2d04c26b08f9f2b9
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
[post edit resored, but acknoledged]
>G > Firemonkey, If I'm a Professional Victim, then
>G > how do you explain Dan's claim that he was
>G > investigated for Child Abuse 25+ times and
>G > founded 5 of those times, once for
>G > child sexual abuse?
>
>KBW > What does that have to do with the 1 inch
>KBW > think [thick] file that was used, in additon
>KBW > to other material, [ like what? ] as a means
>KBW > to help PROVE you have a psychological
>KBW > NEED to be a victim?
>
>A one inch stack of caseworker bullshit as
>input into a psych eval is not proof of anything
>except an attempt to RIG a psych eval.
Hense the "...in addition to other material..." comment.
>
>I got a state MSW to testify that such
>INPUT would indeed taint a psych eval.
Prove it. You've been caught lying far too many times for me to
take your word for it.
>
>CPS failed to show any basis that I should.
Whereas you've always chose to HIDE rather than offer ANYTHING in
the way of proof that CPS has ever investigated you, your claim is
taken for the continued CPS shill LIE it is.
>
>G > Wouldn't that number of cases imply a more
>G > ""professional"" standing than mine?
>
>KBW > Are you claiming that, like you, Dan has
>KBW > a 1 inch think [thick] file
>
>With Dan's 25+ investigations, 5 foundeds,
>1 for sexual abuse? How big do you think
>the stack would be, Kent?
Avoidance noted. Now that you've played, and lost, the avoidance
game, please answer the question.
BTW, why have you changed the number to 25+? Seems every few
months you add to the number. What is your specific motivation for
this act of deception, Greg?
>
>KBW > that would cause a fully trained and
>KBW > educated psychologist to conclude
>KBW > he has a psychological NEED to be
>KBW > a victim? This accusation has not
>KBW > been made before.
>
>With Dan's 25+ investigations it probably has.
>
Why, exactly, are you compelled to add to the number of
investiations?
>The unqualified caseworker who tried that
>on me was forced to eat his words.
Prove it. That will be a win for you.
If you would rather admit, by your standards, that your claim is
just more of your attempt to get parents dealing with CPS to foolishly
trust you so that you may sabotage their case(s), this is acceptable
to me. That will be a win for parents everywhere.
>
>G > And do you think the below statements
>G > indicate dan was playing DOCTOR?
>
>KBW > They help PROVE that you accept ANY
>KBW > claim made yb a CPS caseworker as
>KBW > 100% valid 100% of the time. Just like
>KBW > the good little CPS Shill you've been
>KBW > PROVED to be.
>
>Ventrification, manufactured by wind, as in Kent Wills lies.
I've already exposed that lie a few times.
But there may be new readers who won't be aware. I suspect this
is the reason you're using this exposed lie, Greg.
If I'm in error regarding your motivaton, please let me know the
actual reason.
>
>KBW > So, Greg, what was in that 1 inch thick file?
>KBW > How did it come to be 1 inch thick?
>
>CPS agencies are a BUREAUCRACY.
Avoidance noted.
I'm not impressed with your futile attempt to distract.
>
>KBW > Will you answer the questions or further
>KBW > PROVE you hate honesty in all its forms?
>
>Kent Wills, ever the con artist.
>
Odd. I've adopted YOUR posting style in my replies to and
comments about you.
Are you admiting you've been tyring to con people all along?
[snip of items that did not appear in the post to which Greg replied]
Why do you so frequently NEED to post edit, Greg? What is the
root cause of this display of your psychological INABLITY to be
honest?
Serious questions.
Greegor
G > how do you explain Dan's claim that he was
G > investigated for Child Abuse 25+ times and
G > founded 5 of those times, once for
G > child sexual abuse?
KBW > What does that have to do with the 1 inch
KBW > think [thick] file that was used, in additon
KBW > to other material, [ like what? ] as a means
KBW > to help PROVE you have a psychological
KBW > NEED to be a victim?
G > A one inch stack of caseworker bullshit as
G > input into a psych eval is not proof of anything
G > except an attempt to RIG a psych eval.
KBW > Hense
Spot anything wrong, Kent?
KBW > the "...in addition to other material..." comment.
non sequitur as well
G > I got a state MSW to testify that such
G > INPUT would indeed taint a psych eval.
KBW > Prove it. You've been caught lying far
KBW > too many times for me to take your word for it.
You are Kent Bradley Wills, DOB Jan 8, 1969
G > CPS failed to show any basis that I should.
KBW > Whereas you've always chose
[ chosen ]
KBW > to HIDE
KBW > rather than offer ANYTHING in the way
KBW > of proof that CPS has ever investigated
KBW > you, your claim is taken for the
KBW > continued CPS shill LIE it is.
You are Kent bradley Wills, DOB Jan 8, 1969
G > Wouldn't that number of cases imply a more
G > ""professional"" standing than mine?
KBW > Are you claiming that, like you, Dan has
KBW > a 1 inch think [thick] file
G > With Dan's 25+ investigations, 5 foundeds,
G > 1 for sexual abuse? How big do you think
G > the stack would be, Kent?
KBW > Avoidance noted. Now that you've played,
KBW > and lost, the avoidance game, please
KBW > answer the question.
KBW > BTW, why have you changed the number to
KBW > 25+? Seems every few months you add to
KBW > the number. What is your specific motivation
KBW > for this act of deception, Greg?
Did you MISS that Dan Sullivan claimed different
numbers at different times?
KBW > that would cause a fully trained and
KBW > educated psychologist to conclude
KBW > he has a psychological NEED to be
KBW > a victim? This accusation has not
KBW > been made before.
G > With Dan's 25+ investigations it probably has.
KBW > Why, exactly, are you compelled to add
KBW > to the number of investiations?
Did you MISS that Dan Sullivan claimed different
numbers at different times?
G > The unqualified caseworker who tried that
G > on me was forced to eat his words.
KBW > Prove it. That will be a win for you.
You are Kent Bradley Wills, DOB Jan 8, 1969
> If you would rather admit, by your standards, that your claim is
> just more of your attempt to get parents dealing with CPS to foolishly
> trust you so that you may sabotage their case(s), this is acceptable
> to me. That will be a win for parents everywhere.
Could you translate that from the original Polish?
G > And do you think the below statements
G > indicate dan was playing DOCTOR?
KBW > They help PROVE that you accept ANY
KBW > claim made yb a CPS caseworker as
KBW > 100% valid 100% of the time. Just like
KBW > the good little CPS Shill you've been
KBW > PROVED to be.
G > Ventrification, manufactured by wind, as in Kent Wills lies.
KBW > I've already exposed that lie a few times.
KBW > But there may be new readers who
KBW > won't be aware. I suspect this is the
KBW > reason you're using this exposed lie, Greg.
KBW > If I'm in error regarding your motivaton,
KBW > please let me know the actual reason.
The old "checks in the mail" fallacy from you again, Kent?
KBW > So, Greg, what was in that 1 inch thick file?
KBW > How did it come to be 1 inch thick?
G > CPS agencies are a BUREAUCRACY.
KBW > Avoidance noted.
KBW > I'm not impressed with your futile attempt to distract.
KBW > Will you answer the questions or further
KBW > PROVE you hate honesty in all its forms?
G > Kent Wills, ever the con artist.
KBW > Odd. I've adopted YOUR posting style in
KBW > my replies to and comments about you.
KBW > Are you admiting you've been tyring to
KBW > con people all along?
> [snip of items that did not appear in the post to which Greg replied]
>
> Why do you so frequently NEED to post edit, Greg? What is the
> root cause of this display of your psychological INABLITY to be
> honest?
> Serious questions.
Kent Wills AKA Kent Bradley Wills AKA Compuelf AKA (various) DOB Jan 8
1969 Two Felony Garage Burglar used teen as accomplice
http://www.myspace.com/29801731
http://www.myspace.com/KBWILLS
http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc127/kwills_photo/
Kent's stock deceptions/logical fallacies
F. Ad Hominem calling opponents
1. Drunks or drunk drivers
2. Druggies or on drugs
3. Mentally Ill often as result of drug use
G. Res Judicata
1. Already conceded to Kent's argument
2. Question already asked and answered.
H. Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence
1a. Missing Middle, False Dilemma, False Dichotomy, bifurcation
1b. Fallacy of Complex Question - loaded question with presupposition
2. Withholding proof saying it's already on the table
3. ""Check is in the mail"" as proof of something.
4. Proof held hostage awaiting opponents proof on something else
J. Lie claimed to be based on opponents standards - a type of strawman
It's as if Kent is an automation that is WAY too simple.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html
Since a question is not an argument, simply asking a loaded question
is not a fallacious argument. Rather, loaded questions are typically
used to trick someone into implying something they did not intend. For
instance, salespeople learn to ask such loaded questions as: "Will
that be cash or charge?" This question gives only two alternatives,
thus presuming that the potential buyer has already decided to make a
purchase, which is similar to the Black-or-White Fallacy. If the
potential buyer answers the question directly, he may suddenly find
himself an actual buyer.
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://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
State v. Wills, 696 N.W.2d 20, 22 (Iowa 2005).
cited BY 06-1812 State v. CARROLL (Iowa 2007)
cited BY 08-0460 State v. Berry (Iowa 2009)
SUMMARY
A Home’s Attached Garage Can Be an Occupied Structure
State v. Wills, _____ N.W.2d _____ (Iowa 2005)(No. 31/04-0202)
Kent Bradley Wills argued that his trial attorney was ineffective
because of a failure to move for acquittal and to object to a jury
instruction. Wills argued an attached garage of a residence is a
separate occupied structure from the living quarters of the residence,
and the state failed to prove an element of a burglary charge against
him.
The Supreme Court, Wiggins, J., rejects Wills’ argument. The Court
notes the garage at the home involved in the incident was separated
from the living quarters by a door. The garage is a functional part of
the residence. The garage and living quarters are a single structure.
Under Iowa law (section 702.12, Iowa Code) the residence including the
garage is a single “occupied structure”. The Court writes, “Wills’
claim is without merit. . . . [T]he residence is the one and only
‘occupied structure’ under the facts of this case. Had Wills’ trial
counsel made this objection . . . , it would have been overruled.
Therefore, Wills’ trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to move
for a judgment of acquittal or object to the instruction because there
was no legal basis for the motion or objection.” The district court
decision denying Wills’ ineffective counsel motion is affirmed.
1. State v. Wills, No. 31 / 04-0202 , SUPREME COURT OF IOWA, May 6,
2005, Filed
OVERVIEW: Defendant's conviction for burglary under Iowa Code § 713.5
(2) (2003) was affirmed as where defendant entered a garage that was
only separated from the living quarters by a door, the living quarters
including the garage were a single "occupied structure" under Iowa
Code § 702.12.
Kent's Appeal
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
HTML
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 31 / 04-0202
Filed May 6, 2005
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
KENT BRADLEY WILLS,
Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk
County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.
Defendant appeals claiming ineffective
assistance of counsel. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender,
and Tricia Johnston, Assistant State
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin
Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, John P.
Sarcone, County Attorney, and John Judisch,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
WIGGINS, Justice.
Kent Wills appeals his conviction for
second-degree burglary contending that
an attached garage is a separate occupied
structure from that of the living quarters
of the residence. In this appeal, we must
determine whether trial counsel was
ineffective for (1) failing to move for
judgment of acquittal on the basis there
was insufficient evidence to convict Wills
of second-degree burglary when he entered
an attached garage of a residence when no
persons were present in the garage, but
when persons were present in the living
quarters; and (2) failing to object to a
jury instruction based on this same
argument. Because we find there was no
legal basis for the motion for judgment
of acquittal or the objection to the jury
instruction, Wills' trial counsel was not
ineffective. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Around 1 a.m., an Ankeny resident called
the local police to report that a car
alarm sounded in the resident's
neighborhood. The city dispatched a police
officer to the location. Observing nothing
unusual, the officer left the area, only
to be stopped a couple of blocks later
by a person who informed the officer he
had witnessed someone running from the
area of the car alarm. As the officer
started driving back to the area of the
car alarm, he noticed a person walking
on the sidewalk. The officer asked the
person, a minor, if he had noticed anybody
running from the area. The minor answered
that he had not. While the officer and
another officer were speaking to the minor,
another resident of the neighborhood
arrived in her car and informed the
officers that she had observed two people,
one of whom was heavy set with a blinking
light on his back pocket, walking in the
area of her neighbor's residence. She
observed the heavier-set individual, later
identified as Wills, enter her neighbor's
attached garage through an unlocked service
door. She further observed a smaller
individual standing by a van parked in
the neighbor's driveway.
The officers eventually let the minor leave
even though they found a large amount of
coins, a flashlight, and an electronic
pocket organizer in his pockets. After
releasing the minor, the police officers
drove to the residence where the neighbor
observed the two suspicious people and
woke the owner. The owner, his wife,
and two daughters were in the residence
sleeping at the time. After a search
of his vehicles, the owner discovered
change and an electronic pocket organizer
were missing from the vehicles. The
owner's daughter reported a diamond ring
and some change were missing from her
vehicle. The officers then contacted
the minor's parents, who informed the
officers the minor was with Wills. After
the officers questioned the minor again,
he admitted his involvement in the theft
and implicated Wills in the burglary.
Although Wills denied involvement in the
burglary, the officers arrested him.
The State filed a trial information
charging Wills with second-degree
burglary. The State later amended the
information to include two additional
charges of burglary in the third degree
and using a juvenile to commit an
indictable offense.
The jury returned a verdict finding Wills
guilty of the crimes of burglary in the
second degree, burglary in the third
degree, and using a juvenile to commit
an indictable offense. Wills appeals his
conviction for second-degree burglary
claiming ineffective assistance of
counsel.
II. Scope of Review.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
are derived from the Sixth Amendment of the
United States Constitution. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-86, 104 S.
Ct. 2052, 2063-64, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 691-93
(1984). Our review for a claim involving
violations of the Constitution is de novo.
State v. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d 95, 100
(Iowa 2004). We normally preserve
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
for postconviction relief actions. State
v. Carter, 602 N.W. 2d 818, 820 (Iowa 1999).
However, we will address such claims on
direct appeal when the record is sufficient
to permit a ruling. State v. Artzer,
609 N.W.2d 526, 531 (Iowa 2000). The
appellate record in the present case is
sufficient to allow us to address Wills'
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
on direct appeal.
In order for a defendant to succeed on a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
the defendant must prove: (1) counsel
failed to perform an essential duty and
(2) prejudice resulted. Id. Prejudice
results when "there is a reasonable
probability that, but for the counsel's
unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different."
State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 378
(Iowa 1998) (quoting Strickland, 466
U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068,
80 L. Ed. 2d at 698). Wills' arguments
also raise issues of statutory
interpretation, which we review for
correction of errors at law. State v.
Wolford Corp., 689 N.W.2d 471, 473 (Iowa 2004).
III. Analysis.
To find Wills guilty of burglary in the
second degree, the State had to prove
Wills perpetrated a burglary "in or
upon an occupied structure in which one
or more persons are present . . . ." Iowa
Code § 713.5(2) (2003) (emphasis added).
In this appeal, Wills first contends his
trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to move for a judgment of acquittal on
the basis there was insufficient evidence
to support a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage, there were persons
present in or upon the occupied structure.
Wills concedes the garage was an occupied
structure, but argues the living quarters
and the attached garage are separate and
independent occupied structures; therefore,
the jury could not have found there were
people present in the attached garage
at the time of the burglary.
The Code defines an "occupied structure" as:
[A]ny building, structure, appurtenances
to buildings and structures, land, water
or air vehicle, or similar place adapted
for overnight accommodation of persons,
or occupied by persons for the purpose of
carrying on business or other activity
therein, or for the storage or safekeeping
of anything of value. Such a structure
is an "occupied structure" whether or not
a person is actually present.
Id. § 702.12.
Wills relies on State v. Smothers, 590
N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 1999), to argue the
garage and the living quarters are separate
and independent occupied structures. In
Smothers, two separate and distinct
businesses connected by interior fire doors
were operated in the same structure.
590 N.W.2d at 723. We held the defendant
committed two burglaries by entering each
business because "[t]he facility's
construction history and physical make-up
demonstrate that the portions are
independent working units which constitute
'[a] combination of materials to form a
construction for occupancy [or] use.'" Id.
Smothers is not at odds with the present
case because the living quarters and the
garage are not separate or independent
units of the residence.
Our review of the record reveals the garage
in question was a three-car attached garage
separated from the living quarters by a
door. The same roof covered the garage as
the rest of the residence. The living
quarters surrounded the garage on two sides.
It was structurally no different from any
other room in the residence.
The garage was a functional part of the
residence. On the night of the incident,
the door was unlocked. The owner of the
residence used two stalls in the garage to
park the family vehicles. The owner used
the third stall for his motorcycle. As
such, the garage and the living quarters
are a single "structure" or "building"
functioning as an integral part of the
family residence. Thus, the residence
including the garage is a single
"occupied structure" under section 702.12.
See, e.g., People v. Ingram, 48 Cal. Rptr.
2d 256 (Ct. App.1995) (holding defendant's
entry into an attached garage constituted
first-degree burglary because the garage
was attached to the house; therefore,
burglary of the garage was burglary of
an inhabited dwelling house); People v.
Cunningham, 637 N.E.2d 1247, 1252 (Ill.
App. Ct. 1994) (holding "ordinarily an
attached garage is a 'dwelling' because
it is part of the structure in which
the owner or occupant lives");
State v. Lara, 587 P.2d 52, 53
(N.M. Ct. App. 1978) (holding "burglary
of the [attached] garage was burglary of
the dwelling house because the garage was
a part of the structure used as living
quarters"); People v. Green, 141 A.D.2d
760, 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) (holding
"[s]ince the garage in the present case
was structurally part of a building
which was used for overnight lodging of
various persons, it must be considered
as part of a dwelling"); White v. State,
630 S.W. 2d 340, 342 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982)
(holding an attached garage under the
same roof as the home would be considered
a habitation within the purview of the
penal code because the garage is a
structure appurtenant to and connected
to the house); State v. Murbach, 843 P.
2d 551, 553 (Wash. Ct. App 1993)
(holding the definition of a dwelling
under Washington's burglary statute
included an attached garage).
Had Wills' trial counsel moved for a
judgment of acquittal on the basis there
was insufficient evidence to support
a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage there were no persons
present in or upon the occupied
structure, it would have been overruled
by the court because the owner and his
family were present in the residence at
the time of the burglary.
Wills also claims his counsel was
ineffective for failing to object to
the jury instruction used by the district
court on the same ground; that the
living quarters were a separate and
independent occupied structure from the
attached garage. The instruction as
given stated:
The State must prove all of the following
elements of Burglary in the Second
Degree as to Count I:
1. On or about the 12th day of August,
2003, the defendant or someone he aided
and abetted broke into or entered the
residence at . . . .
2. The residence at . . . was an occupied
structure as defined in Instruction No. 29.
3. The defendant or the person he aided
and abetted did not have permission or
authority to break into the residence at ...
4. The defendant or the person he aided
and abetted did so with the specific
intent to commit a theft therein.
5. During the incident persons were present
in or upon the occupied structure.
If the State has proved all of the elements,
the defendant is guilty of Burglary in the
Second Degree. If the State has failed to prove
any of the elements, the defendant is not
guilty of Burglary in the Second Degree and
you will then consider the charge of
Attempted Burglary in the Second Degree
explained in Instruction No. 21.
(Emphasis added.)
Wills' claim is without merit. As we have
discussed, the residence is the one and
only "occupied structure" under the facts
of this case. Had Wills' trial counsel
made this objection to the instruction,
it would have been overruled.
Therefore, Wills' trial counsel is not
ineffective for failing to move
for a judgment of acquittal or objecting
to the instruction because there was no
legal basis for the motion or objection.
See State v. Hochmuth, 585 N.W.2d 234,
238 (Iowa 1998) (holding trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise an
issue that has no merit).
IV. Disposition.
We affirm the judgment of the district
court because Wills' trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise
meritless issues.
AFFIRMED.
---------------------------------
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
Key Words:
Kent Bradley Wills, Con Artist, Troll, Manipulator,
Attention Seeking Behavior,
Polish Immigrant,
Morton's Fork, Excluded Middle, False Dichotomy,
Fallacy, Black or White Fallacy, False Dilemma,
either-or fallacy, fallacy of false choice,
fallacy of exhaustive hypotheses,The Fallacy of the Missing Middle,
Bogus Dilemma, Bifurcation Fallacy, fallacy of Suppressed Evidence,
Sociopath, Psychopath, Criminal, Felon,
Garage Burglar, Two Time Felon, Confidence Artist,
Con Artist, Sociopathic Reasoning,
Greegor
actually cite Kent's famous case.
Volume 696 N.W.2d 20,22 (Iowa 2005)
cited BY 06-1812 State v. CARROLL (Iowa 2007)
cited BY 08-0460 State v. Berry (Iowa 2009)
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
Kent Wills
>I see that several more recent cases in Iowa
>actually cite Kent's famous case.
But you claimed the information isn't about me. Where you lying
then, or are you lying now? There is no way both claims can be true,
so one MUST be a lie.
Which one will you admit to be the lie, Greg?
--a true story
As of Monday, February 1, 2010:
Financials
Title: STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREG SCOTT
Case: 06571 AGCR015216 (LINN)
Citation Number:
Summary Orig Paid Due
COSTS 9200.00 850.00 8350.00
FINE 500.00 500.00 0.00
SURCHARGE 150.00 150.00 0.00
RESTITUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00
OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00
$9850.00 $1500.00 $8350.00
Yes, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson still owes over
$8000.00 related to his convictions for BEATING his ex-wife.
Me: Hey, he used your standards.
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson: It's textbook psychopathic
reasoning.
Greg admitting his standards are psychopathic.
In MID
<2afdd85e-3b16-4829...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
Greg makes it clear he thinks reality TV shows are fantasy.
>
Greegor
1969 Two Felony Garage Burglar used teen as accomplice
http://www.myspace.com/29801731
http://www.myspace.com/KBWILLS
http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc127/kwills_photo/
Kent's stock deceptions/logical fallacies
F. Ad Hominem calling opponents
1. Drunks or drunk drivers
2. Druggies or on drugs
3. Mentally Ill often as result of drug use
G. Res Judicata
1. Already conceded to Kent's argument
2. Question already asked and answered.
H. Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence
1a. Missing Middle, False Dilemma, False Dichotomy, bifurcation
1b. Fallacy of Complex Question - loaded question with presupposition
2. Withholding proof saying it's already on the table
3. ""Check is in the mail"" as proof of something.
4. Proof held hostage awaiting opponents proof on something else
J. Lie claimed to be based on opponents standards - a type of strawman
Claim that a lack of proof disproves something.
Claim that a lack of proof proves something.
It's as if Kent is an automation that is WAY too simple.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html
Since a question is not an argument, simply asking a loaded question
is not a fallacious argument. Rather, loaded questions are typically
used to trick someone into implying something they did not intend. For
instance, salespeople learn to ask such loaded questions as: "Will
that be cash or charge?" This question gives only two alternatives,
thus presuming that the potential buyer has already decided to make a
purchase, which is similar to the Black-or-White Fallacy. If the
potential buyer answers the question directly, he may suddenly find
himself an actual buyer.
Kent's Criminal Appeal for Garage Burglary
IN PRINTED LAW BOOKS
West's North Western Reporter
Second Series
A Unit of the National Reporter System
Volume 696 N.W.2d 20,22 (Iowa 2005)
cited BY 06-1812 State v. CARROLL (Iowa 2007)
cited BY 08-0460 State v. Berry (Iowa 2009)
Kent's Appeal
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
PDF
HTML
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
Some of Kent Wills' known usenet newsgroup identities:
compuelf at yahoo.com
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=5zmbTBIAAADOJ684KS60nUaU_zmlHzoM8rhlH0Pnl47z4AZhN98BFg
compuelf at gmail.com
http://groups.google.com/groups/profile?hl=en&enc_user=tO2J8xIAAAD-FV_7I-6E0McpeoqRe5_P8rhlH0Pnl47z4AZhN98BFg
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 20,22 (Iowa 2005)
SUMMARY
713.5(2) (2003) was affirmed as where defendant entered a garage that
Kent's Appeal
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
HTML
WIGGINS, Justice.
II. Scope of Review.
III. Analysis.
Id. § 702.12.
(Emphasis added.)
IV. Disposition.
AFFIRMED.
---------------------------------
GeoParcel 8024-15-452-029 District/Parcel 181/00392-048-000
A Larger photo:
http://www.assess.co.polk.ia.us/cgi-bin/seephoto/photosize.cgi?gp=802415452029&size=Large
Check this out!
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
Under the "Filings" tab:
Under the "Financial" Tab:
----------------------------------------
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
Defendant: WILLS, KENT BRADLEY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
---------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
-------------------------------------
-----------------------------------
Consider the following:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.bob-larson/msg/b9653f6758b592b8
Key Words:
http://home.comcast.net/~kaldis/Xns996259.txt
Path: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net!wnmaster12!wn13feed!
worldnet.att.net!216.196.98.141!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!
local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 02:46:16 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.fan.bob-larson,alt.law-enforcement,misc.legal
Subject: You wanted information about Kent Bradley Wills?
From: Doc Savage <xxxr...@cambs.edu>
Organization: Who, moi?
Message-ID: <Xns996259...@216.196.109.131>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 02:46:17 -0500
Lines: 280
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-g9k+lpZkZTB0PdHxmkMB8peH/NJmgawPMG5j
+YfjKtLsC5MEdAtpKYpvhawEcEpA49gJBwEqhUVT9W8!
r6UL6tcH4l3tDZxNmw48T3tAWw7lmFpEQNRFhd1Yp1WmxQH0o270WCpLBFQ7mE4=
X-Complaints-To: ab...@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.35
Bytes: 11367
X-Original-Bytes: 11323
Xref: wnmaster12 alt.fan.bob-larson:96767 alt.law-enforcement:686035
misc.legal:443517
X-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 07:47:37 GMT (bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net)
Here ya go. All public information
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/SelectFrame
Click on Trial Court Case Search on the right
That opens the input dialogue page. You may be able to go straight
to
it from this link, or it may be my cache opening the page
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/TrialSimpFrame
Type Wills Kent Bradley in the top boxes, it doesn't matter if you
capialise or not, then hit the search button
The search returns four hits
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT B WILLS WILLS KENT 01/08/1969
DEFENDANT
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS WILLS KENT 01/08/1969
DEFENDANT
05771 STAN201670 STATE OF IOWA vs WILLS, KENT BRADLEY WILLS KENT
01/08/1969 DEFENDANT
05771 STAN210929 STATE OF IOWA vs WILLS, KENT BRADLEY WILLS KENT
01/08/1969 DEFENDANT
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT B WILLS 01/08/1969 DEFENDANT
Reading through these shows that Kent served time in Fort Des Moines
and
it looks like he also served 100 days in the county slammer.
I'm not sure about US Law, and I forgot to ask when I last posted in
us.legal, but doesn't serving time in Ft Des Moines mean that you can
never teach school in the US?
For the record, you can reverse search for Kenny through his parents
names. They are Frederick (Fred) Alfred (A) Wills, and Janet Rae (R)
Wills, who owned 202 NW College Ave Ankeny Ia50021-2136
That isn't totally accurate. Fred bought the place, but Fred and
Janet
sold it, despite Kennys claims that he bought and sold it.
There are also planning permit applications listed in various
newspapers, purchase of a new duplex in Rogers, committee minutes and
reports, engagement and wedding announcements. I have around 400
pages
of stuff.
Kents birthday. Search alt.friends using the dates January 7 and 8.
He's made no secret of it over the years.
Just for fun, here's part of an email I got back from the Iowa DOC
when
I asked a few questions about his claim to have falsified the court
records. It's easy done, and they're very open if you are polite,
but
be sure your personal details are verifiable when they check on you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Olson, Fay [DOC] On Behalf Of Information, DOC
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 8:02 AM
To: Lauterbach, Charles [DOC]
Subject: FW: One of your probationers
Importance: High
Kent Bradley Wills, #1155768.Would you please respond to this e-mail
(from the DOC web site). Thank you. Fay
The phone number for the Arkansas Department of Corrections compact
office is (501)682-9584.
<snip info which I can't legally post>
--------------------------------------
It certainly looks like they know you in Iowa Kenny.
I also received this one;
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lauterbach, Charles [DOC]" <Charles.L...@iowa.gov>
To:
Cc: "Hornocker, Jan [DOC]" <Jan.Ho...@iowa.gov>;
<ard...@arkansas.gov>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 3:33 PM
Subject: RE: Probationer Kent Bradley Wills IA # 1155768
Janice- Please see message below FYI.
Wills is being supervised in the State of Arkansas. The phone number
for
the Arkansas Department of Corrections compact office is
(501)682-9584.
<snip more information>
------------------------------------
And then the Arkansas DOC sent me this one. LOL, I got a gagging
order
issued against Wills for lying and making anti semitic commentary.
ardccic[at]arkansas[dot]gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Towner
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:38 PM
To: AR DCC Interstate Compact
Cc: Vince Morris
Subject: FW: Probationer Kent Bradley Wills IA # 1155768
Subject: FW: Probationer Kent Bradley Wills IA # 1155768
PPO Mike Markum and I met with Kent Wills this day at the probation
office. Respecting confidentiality for all concerned, this matter has
been resolved as follows: Kent Bradley Wills has been advised to
cease
contact of any kind related to, or with, Rabbi Goldblum. If Wills
disobeys this directive, do not hesitate to contact us.
-----------------------------------------------------
>>all, then forged the Appellate Ruling which DENIED his appeal as being
>>without merit ?
>>
>
> I made no such forgery.
>
Oh, naughty naughty Kent. Wash your mouth with soapy water.
Path:
border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newshub2.home.nl!
newshub1.home.nl!home.nl!skynet.be!newsfeed.news2me.com!
newshub.sdsu.edu!newscon04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!
newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!
newssvr29.news.prodigy.net.POSTED!86707a39!not-for-mail
From: Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.friends
Subject: Re: FFS
Organization: None that I know about.
Reply-To: comp...@gmail.com
Message-ID: <1hshd21ctmf8g2pqg...@4ax.com>
References: <op.tdvj1...@fx62.mshome.net>
<jlecd29jmeup0qjp7...@4ax.com>
<op.tdvmb...@fx62.mshome.net> <Xns981835E8640C0Doc@
216.196.109.144>
<hcOdnRAPS7D...@giganews.com>
<13cfd25fvdrpq1qmi...@4ax.com>
<Xns981935...@216.196.109.144>
<44d87cee$0$17975$892e...@authen.yellow.readfreenews.net>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
X-No-Archive: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 77
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.152.199.248
X-Complaints-To: ab...@prodigy.net
X-Trace: newssvr29.news.prodigy.net 1155070394 ST000 69.152.199.248
(Tue, 08
Aug 2006 16:53:14 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 16:53:14 EDT
X-UserInfo1:
SCSGW_[DXBRYSTXXHBCBNWX@RJ_XPDLMN@GZ_GYO^BSZUSAANVUEAE[YETZPIWWI
[FCIZA^NBFXZ_D[BFNTCNVPDTNTKHWXKB@X^B_OCJLPZ@ET_O[G\XSG@E\G
[ZKVLBL^CJINM@I_KVIOR\T_M_AW_M[_BWU_HFA_]@A_A^SGFAUDE_DFTMQPFWVW[QPJN
Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:53:14 GMT
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com alt.friends:43706
I have it on good authority that on Tue, 8 Aug 2006 07:01:23 -0500,
"TNKev" <service...@adodgedealer.invalid> wrote:
>Doc Savage wrote:
>> Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:13cfd25fvdrpq1qmi...@4ax.com:
>>
>
>
>ROTFLMAO!
>
>no way, not Kent!
>
Why not? I mean, I can break into cars... Um... Do they still
make black jacks for things like that?
Short version:
About a year ago some of the IT guys with the Fifth Judicial
District in Des Moines, Iowa helped me set a trap for Doc. While I
was certain he found it, I presumed his lack of mentioning it meant he
saw it for the trap it was and disregarded it.
Some of the clues that the information is bogus:
1) The two felonies listed are both 10 year felonies. The
misdemeanor is a five year sentence (though probation is permitted for
first time offenders under Iowa's sentencing laws -- the first time
offender bit will become more important later on).
Even if served concurrently, it's a 10 year sentence. Iowa
law requires a minimum of one third of a sentence be served before the
offender is *eligible* to see the parole board. Being granted an
interview with the board doesn't mean the offender will get parole.
A minimum of three and one third years in prison would have to
have been served. Try to find a three year gap in my posting history.
2) It takes a bit of digging, but the address listed as my
place of residence is a closed and abandoned hotel in Ankeny. I
haven't lived in Ankeny, regardless of location, since 1998.
3) A previous felony conviction is listed (this is why the
first time offender bit was and is important as it means probation was
NOT an option). Under Iowa's Three Strikes and You're Out law, a
third felony means a MINIMUM of 25 years in prison. Again, Iowa law
requires one third of the sentence be served before the offender is
allowed to seek parole.
That's roughly eight and one third years. I've been on Usenet
since 1993. I encourage everyone to find an eight year gap in my
posting history.
4) Let's pretend I somehow managed to con probation out of the
judge (in violation of Iowa's sentencing laws -- one of the felonies
is Using a Juvenile to Commit and Indictable Offence which is
MANDATORY prison time). I went to Aruba in February. Scans of some
of the pictures (including the TSA luggage tag, my passport stamp
showing entry and exit dates, and so on) can be seen at:
http://www.geocities.com/compuelf/aruba2006
The best image is the TSA tag. It's a Federal felony to forge
one. Either it's legitimate, or I'm one cocky guy.
TSA would know if I was on probation, and I wouldn't have been
allowed to go to South America, since there's no guaranty I would
return to finish my sentence.
There's more, but I discussed this to death in misc.legal. If
anyone wants to know the rest (part of it involves a name Doc posted
under in this very group), E-mail me and I'll let you know.
- - -
Kent
If Mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.
If Daddy ain't happy, don't nobody care!
There was an earlier article in the trial discussion when Kenny
claimed
he had the trial data posted for Theo, but I'll let that little slip
pass for now.
With a little bit of digging and reading Peter Huckers replies to
Kents
posts in alt.friends, anyone can find the claim he made about carrying
a
.32 cal handgun in his pickup.
That was right after Kent lied about the age of the juvenile he took
out
burglarizing garages and parked cars at 1am, and all for what? An
electronic pocket organiser, a diamond ring and $20 in change.
On the subject of wives and kids, why are there no listings for
Richard
and why can nobody in the Iowa Justice system find any references to
any
psychologist named Lindsay? LOL, I rented out rooms to a retired US
Circuit Court Judge who tutored in US Law when I was at Cambridge.
I can find recent listings and records for Amy D Wills, Samantha T
Wills
and Kelly M Wills all sharing some of the same addresses as you, your
parents and your sister Tiffany, but even a professional search
failed
to turn up any evidence of there ever being a wife named Lindsay and
a
son named Richard.
How can you tell Wills is lying?
His lips are moving and his hand is near a computer keyboard.
Kent Wills
>Kent Wills AKA Kent Bradley Wills AKA Compuelf AKA (various) DOB Jan 8
>1969 Two Felony Garage Burglar used teen as accomplice
Yet you openly admitted I did not when you stated the information
isn't about me.
How do you rationalize your conflicting claims, Greg? Which
claim do you wish to state was and is the lie?
There is no way for both claims to be true. One must be lie. Why
not let the readers know which of your claims is the lie?
>
>http://www.myspace.com/29801731
>
>http://www.myspace.com/KBWILLS
>
>http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc127/kwills_photo/
>
Wow. I have a Myspace and Photobucket page. Truths about which
I am quite open.
Only you could think that my having them proves any of your
deceptive claims.
>
>Kent's stock deceptions/logical fallacies
>
>F. Ad Hominem calling opponents
> 1. Drunks or drunk drivers
Only if they have claimed it, or there is a conviction for them.
Ken claimed he was found legally insane and that this was a
result of his alcoholism. Either or both claims could be lies. If
either or both are, they are Ken's lies and he must live with them.
Someone named Greg Hanson with the same date of birth you claim
for yourself was convicted of OWI, though I don't know that he was
drunk. As you know, since I cited applicable statutory law, in Iowa,
alcohol isn't the only substance which can lead to OWI.
> 2. Druggies or on drugs
Only if they have admitted it, or offered the proof themselves.
Please see my sig for the VERBATIM quote from you in which you
admit that your use and abuse of illegal drugs causes you to stalk the
members of alt.friends.
You may have been lying, of course. If so, the lie is yours.
> 3. Mentally Ill often as result of drug use
I've only done that with you, since you openly admitted your use
and abuse illegal drugs. You consistently prove, with no assistance
from anyone else, that you are mentally retarded.
Not even Dustin Hoffman is so good an actor.
>G. Res Judicata
> 1. Already conceded to Kent's argument
By your own standards, you often do. How many times have you
claimed someone has made the tacit admission that you are correct
because they've not addressed your acts of deception?
If you think your standards are in some way unfair, then you
shouldn't have used them with others.
> 2. Question already asked and answered.
It's been proved that even after a question has been answered, you
will ask it multiple times in the dishonest attempt to make it appear
as if no answer was given.
Even though this deception of yours has been exposed, you continue
to use it.
>H. Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence
> 1a. Missing Middle, False Dilemma, False Dichotomy, bifurcation
Please cite, with MIDs and/or Google links, any such actions from
me. And the cites must be genuine. That you claim them doesn't make
the claim true. Often it's means the opposite.
> 1b. Fallacy of Complex Question - loaded question with presupposition
Did I adopt your M.O. a few times, Greg?
If using your posting style, M.O., and standards against you
upsets you, perhaps you would be wise to cease using them against
others.
> 2. Withholding proof saying it's already on the table
That you snip away the proof of claims when you reply in a
pathetic attempt to make it appear as if the proof wasn't presented
doesn't mean it wasn't presented, Greg.
> 3. ""Check is in the mail"" as proof of something.
I've made no such claim in regards to anything.
Prove I've presented such an argument, or make the tacit
admission, by your standards, that another of your lies has been
exposed.
Maybe you confused me with Pangborn? He did give his word that
he would make the proof he claimed to have that David was adopted
available if David would admit from where he got the list of names.
David admitted he got them from Barbara's Facebook page. Ken
confirmed this is the only place from where David could have gotten
the names.
Ken never offered the proof he claimed to posses.
> 4. Proof held hostage awaiting opponents proof on something else
Prove there is a picture of David dressed as a Nazi and a picture
of me ridding a pony, or admit you've been lying about the existence
of both the whole time.
This is not an unreasonable request since you've made the FACT
CLAIM (I know, I'm using your posting style here) that you have both.
It's time to prove your claim or admit you've been lying.
Yes, by YOUR standards, you've made the tacit admission that
you've been lying about them the whole time, but I would like a full
confession from you that you've been lying about the existence of both
the whole time.
Letting the readers know your motivation for lying would be a
nice touch, but it's not required.
>J. Lie claimed to be based on opponents standards - a type of strawman
Wow. You admit you use your standards to lie.
>
>Claim that a lack of proof disproves something.
>Claim that a lack of proof proves something.
I've made no such claims.
>
>It's as if Kent is an automation that is WAY too simple.
It's as if I'm able to expose your lies as every go.
Oh wait, I do expose your lies at every go. This post is just
the latest example.
[snip the rest of Greg's lies, as they've been exposed numerous times.
There is nothing more I can add to expose them for the lies they are.]
--a true story
As of Monday, February 1, 2010:
Financials
Title: STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREG SCOTT
Case: 06571 AGCR015216 (LINN)
Citation Number:
Summary Orig Paid Due
COSTS 9200.00 850.00 8350.00
FINE 500.00 500.00 0.00
SURCHARGE 150.00 150.00 0.00
RESTITUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00
Greegor
KBW > the information isn't about me.
Where?
Liar.
KBW > How do you rationalize your conflicting claims, Greg?
Which conflicting claims?
You fabricated the contradiction.
KBW > Which claim do you wish to state was and is the lie?
How would I know?
You haven't proven any contradiction.
KBW > There is no way for both claims to be true.
I don't know that there are any contradictions in the first place.
KBW > One must be lie.
You are caveman?
KBW > Why not let the readers
KBW > know which of your claims is the lie?
Post both sides of the supposed
contradiction so they both can.
Don't forget the LINKS.
Kent Wills
>KBW > Yet you openly admitted I did not when you stated
>KBW > the information isn't about me.
>
>Where?
You claimed the information is about another Kent Wills in posts
to Usenet.
>Liar.
You are, as you've once again PROVED, but we're used to it.
>
>KBW > How do you rationalize your conflicting claims, Greg?
>
>Which conflicting claims?
That this information is not about me and is about me.
Sort of like your claim that my mom died, leaving me a great deal
of money, and is alive and a financial advisor.
You do that sort of thing a lot, don't you? You make a FACT
CLAIM about someone, then make a contradictory one.
If your claims were simply errors, you would have stated such
long ago. You didn't for one reason: You are psychologically UNABLE
to be honest unless you make a mistake or are forced.
>You fabricated the contradiction.
Why do you lie?
The information either is or is not about me. You've made both
claims. There is no way both of your claims can be the truth.
>
>KBW >�Which claim do you wish to state was and is the lie?
>
>How would I know?
You made both claims. Are you so stone cold stupid you don't
know what you've posted?
>You haven't proven any contradiction.
>
Why do you lie?
>KBW > There is no way for both claims to be true.
>
>I don't know that there are any contradictions in the first place.
That your mental retardation (no one is that good an actor)
prevents you from knowing what you've posted is accepted. At least by
me.
Maybe you should jot down notes for yourself when you post that
which was authored by another. Maybe you'll not get so confused.
Maybe.
>
>KBW >�One must be lie.
>
>You are caveman?
Your tacit admission, by your own standards, that you have been
caught lying is accepted.
>
>KBW > Why not let the readers
>KBW > know which of your claims is the lie?
>
>Post both sides of the supposed
>contradiction so they both can.
Both?
I already exposed your LIE that there are only two people reading
your lies. Why, given that I did so, do you feel so compelled to
present the same lie?
Serious question, Greg.
>
>Don't forget the LINKS.
As soon as you post the picture of David dressed as a Nazi and
the picture of me on a pony, or admit you've been lying about the
existence of both the whole time, I'll do as you wish.
This has been the requirement for me to honor any request/demand
for links for over a year. Once again you PROVE you can't be honest
except by accident or force.
Way to go, stupid!
Greegor
1969 Two Felony Garage Burglar used teen as accomplice
http://www.myspace.com/29801731
http://www.myspace.com/KBWILLS
http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc127/kwills_photo/
Kent's stock deceptions/logical fallacies
F. Ad Hominem calling opponents
1. Drunks or drunk drivers
2. Druggies or on drugs
3. Mentally Ill often as result of drug use
G. Res Judicata
1. Already conceded to Kent's argument
2. Question already asked and answered.
H. Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence
1a. Missing Middle, False Dilemma, False Dichotomy, bifurcation
1b. Fallacy of Complex Question - loaded question with presupposition
2. Withholding proof saying it's already on the table
3. ""Check is in the mail"" as proof of something.
4. Proof held hostage awaiting opponents proof on something else
J. Lie claimed to be based on opponents standards - a type of strawman
Claim that a lack of proof disproves something.
Claim that a lack of proof proves something.
It's as if Kent is an automation that is WAY too simple.
http://www.fallacyfiles.org/loadques.html
Kent's Appeal
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
PDF
HTML
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
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
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
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
SUMMARY
Kent's Appeal
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
HTML
WIGGINS, Justice.
II. Scope of Review.
III. Analysis.
Id. § 702.12.
(Emphasis added.)
IV. Disposition.
AFFIRMED.
---------------------------------
GeoParcel 8024-15-452-029 District/Parcel 181/00392-048-000
A Larger photo:
http://www.assess.co.polk.ia.us/cgi-bin/seephoto/photosize.cgi?gp=802415452029&size=Large
Check this out!
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
Under the "Filings" tab:
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
Kent Wills
[Context restored at no additional cost]
>>On Tue, 26 Jan 2010 08:52:26 -0800 (PST), Greegor
>><gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>[Context restored]
>>
>>>>> Feel free to continue doing the post edit, if your mental defects
>>>>>demand such of you. I'll simply continue to restore the context of
>>>>>out discussion.
>>>>
>>>> Good grief! That paragraph is just painful!
>>>> It should read, "...doing the post edits, if..." and "...context
>>>>of our discussion."
>>>> More proof, if any were needed, that I should not be allowed to
>>>>proofread my own posts.
>>>
>>>Can't answer the question?
>>
>> There was and is no question in the post to which you replied. As
>>you can see, I've removed your post edit and replaced that which was
>>in the original.
>> Please point out where in the post to which you replied a
>>question can be seen. If you'd rather admit your psychological NEED
>>to be dishonest took over again, that is acceptable to me.
>>
>>>Paragraphs of ""speechifying"" are not
>>
>> Double quotation marks are not scare quotes and still mean
>>nothing. You may LIE and claim otherwise, if you need to.
>> That aside, my pointing out that the paragraph I wrote is very
>>poorly written can't, by any mentally sound person, be seen as
>>speechifying.
>> YMMV, of course.
>>
>>>substitutes for a simple answer.
>>
>> That's almost funny. I point out how poorly I wrote a paragraph,
>>and you think it means something other than what it does. Either that
>>or you have offered more PROOF that you are psychologically UNABLE to
>>be honest, except by accident or force.
>> You'll note that I restored the context of my post, just as I
>>stated I would do when your NEED to be dishonest forced you to LIE and
>>remove the totality of my post and insert that which you KNOW wasn't
>>there.
>> Once again you offer me the chance to PROVE you are
>>psychologically UNABLE to be honest, unless you make a mistake or are
>>somehow forced.
>> You're welcome.
>
>
>Kent Wills AKA Kent Bradley Wills AKA Compuelf AKA (various) DOB Jan 8
[Snip of information Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson has already
admitted isn't about me]
By checking Message-ID:
<3bd052b3-e931-4046...@d4g2000vbm.googlegroups.com> and
Message-ID:
<257e2968-2af5-4809...@a7g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>
(there are others, but these two will stand to prove my claim) one can
verify that you freely and openly admit the information isn't about
me. I understand that wasn't your intent, but you are psychologically
UNABLE to be honest intentionally. Sadly, I've proved that truth many
times.
Since you admit the information you post isn't about me, why do
you continue to post it as if it was and is about me? I've asked this
of you MANY times, but you have yet to answer. Please do so now.
Unless you would rather make the tacit admission, by YOUR standards,
that you are psychologically UNABLE to be honest, unless you make a
mistake or are forced.
Then explain the complete non-sequitur of your reply to my post.
I think it's due to your continued use and abuse of illegal drugs, but
acknowledge there may be other reasons.
--a true story
Summary Orig Paid Due
COSTS 9200.00 850.00 8350.00
FINE 500.00 500.00 0.00
SURCHARGE 150.00 150.00 0.00
RESTITUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00
OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00
$9850.00 $1500.00 $8350.00
Yes, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson still owes over
$8000.00 related to his convictions for BEATING his ex-wife.
Me: Hey, he used your standards.
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson: It's textbook psychopathic
reasoning.
Greg admitting his standards are psychopathic.
In MID
<2afdd85e-3b16-4829...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
Greg writes, "I think Kent plays too many fantasy games
or watches too much fantasy TV." making it very clear he thinks
Greegor
Kent Wills
>Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in news:b32876b1-5a8e-4ccd-af1e-
>0731f7...@k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com:
>
>> How was your honeymoon Kent? Did Dave let you get on top?
>>
>
>
>Why do you sexually abuse children, Gregory Scott Hanson?
Does he still do so? By Greg's own standards, it was PROVED he
sexually molested Lisa's little girl when she was six or seven years
of age. As far as I am aware, there is nothing to show he's still
molesting children.
Of course, people who see children as sexual objects, as Greg has
so frequently proved he does, don't tend to change.
BTW, really bad forgery. Not that Greg will mind. He can jump
on this and claim to be a victim of a witch hunt. It's been a while
since he whined about such a thing, so you may have done him a
service.
Hey, how are things in Hessen?
You aren't as well hidden as you would like to think.