LARRY THE DA - LARRY THE LIAR
krp
about our "debates" over on alt.true-crime about the Duke Lacrosse case.
Larry denied he did that. As an expedient I allowed it to pass. Largely
because it would be one more time consuming pissing contest with dickhead
Danny Sullivan. Larry has been taking me on over in misc.legal. Again
playing the role of "I NEVER DID" for all it was worth - thinking he got
away with lying because I didn't take him on about it. It just didn't seem
worth it. But the lying little prick wouldn't let it rest. Being the smarmy
jerk he is and feeling his OATS he had to claim that *I* had lied about it.
He kept it up for the past few days. I asked him if he was SURE he wanted to
"play." And he said he was.
As some of you have seen - I took the gloves off and showed that Larry
has been LYING HIS ASS OFF. I copied a couple of DOZENS of his raving posts
supporting Mike Nifong and the process. After Nifong was disbarred and
CONVICTED for his misdeeds, you'd think Larry would have the smarts to STFU!
Not our Larry who suffers from terminal arrogance and sanctimony! He either
felt I couldn't or wouldn't dig the stuff up. BAD BET!
So I can see Kent Wills is there supporting Larry. <snicker> I guess you
really ARE known by your friends.Larry needs people like Wills and Sullivan.
Firemonkey
Kadaitcha Man
repeated, ye revealed:
You're a fucking nutter, Pangborn.
--
Hammer of Thor: February 2007. Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook,
Line & Sinker: September 2005, April 2006, January 2007.
Official Member: Cabal Obsidian Order COOSN-124-07-06660
Official Overseer of Kooks & Trolls in 24hoursupport.helpdesk
Dan Sullivan
> Larry appeared in these groups and we sparred a little. I chided him
> about our "debates" over on alt.true-crime about the Duke Lacrosse case.
You asked if Larrye was in a "flame war" with you over the Duke case..
And he said he wasn't.
> Larry denied he did that. As an expedient I allowed it to pass. Largely
> because it would be one more time consuming pissing contest with dickhead
> Danny Sullivan. Larry has been taking me on over in misc.legal.
Translation; pangborn is doing his usual smoke and mirror routine on
misc.legal.
> Again
> playing the role of "I NEVER DID" for all it was worth - thinking he got
> away with lying because I didn't take him on about it.
Larry didn't claim that he didn't post messages on the subject.
He claimed not to have been in a flame war with you, kenny boy.
> It just didn't seem
> worth it. But the lying little prick wouldn't let it rest. Being the smarmy
> jerk he is and feeling his OATS he had to claim that *I* had lied about it.
> He kept it up for the past few days. I asked him if he was SURE he wanted to
> "play." And he said he was.
oooOOOooo, and the end result was what anyone would expect.
Pangborn lost because he lied and didn't stick to the facts, yet he
CLAIMS he WON the argument.
> As some of you have seen - I took the gloves off and showed that Larry
> has been LYING HIS ASS OFF. I copied a couple of DOZENS of his raving posts
> supporting Mike Nifong and the process.
A couple of dozens???"
"I counted three or four.
And Larry wasn't in a flame war.
He responded calmly with facts and verifiable information.
YOU, piggy, resorted to name calling... and you couldn't even spell
the names correctly!!!
> After Nifong was disbarred and
> CONVICTED for his misdeeds, you'd think Larry would have the smarts to STFU!
> Not our Larry who suffers from terminal arrogance and sanctimony! He either
> felt I couldn't or wouldn't dig the stuff up. BAD BET!
>
> So I can see Kent Wills is there supporting Larry. <snicker> I guess you
> really ARE known by your friends.Larry needs people like Wills and Sullivan.
I'm just stating the facts, piggy.
Fun, fun, fun!!!!!
TY for inviting me to the party.
BTW here's a classic exchange between pangborn and Larry;
Pangborn wrote "Oh I know all about the "burden of proof" bullshit
Larry, you can fool others with that crap."
Larry responded with "A trial consultant who calls the burden of proof
"bullshit"? No wonder you went bankrupt. What defendant would hire a
trial consultant who advised him, "you know that 'beyond a reasonable
doubt' stuff? That's bullshit. Don't worry about it."
And pangborn responded with "Yes Larry it is bullshit. It's nice
sounding words for a WHINEY prosecutor to complain about, but it's
BULLSHIT in the REAL WORLD of trials."
Larry responds as a gentleman and pangborn responds as if there's a
flame war going on... no facts, just the usual smoke and mirror
routine.
Greegor
Did you side with Mike Nifong also?
Are you OK with what Mike Nifong did?
Just curious.
You seem to be your own version of "Larry Loophole", right Dan?
Do you think Judges like that sort of stuff?
Is it wise strategy to play the loopholes, Dan?
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:18671f21-f07d-4fef...@z72g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 1, 8:41 am, " krp" <krp24...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Larry appeared in these groups and we sparred a little. I chided him
>> about our "debates" over on alt.true-crime about the Duke Lacrosse case.
>
> You asked if Larrye was in a "flame war" with you over the Duke case..
> And he said he wasn't.
HE LIED!!!!! He LIED his ass off! Plain, pure and simple Danny.
krp
"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:22c361a6-4d76-4425...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
Larry who "claims" to be a BIG TIME TOP ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY in
new York City who wins ALL of his cases against the BEST defense lawyers in
New York (yeah right) was claiming he did NOT engage with me over Nifong's
antics. Not the use of the media, not the phony photo lineup, and long many
things on the laundry list. He was 100% that the Duke players were guilty as
hell. He made one personal attack on me after another about me being a
"trial consultant" and how HE - the GREAT PROSECUTOR was the repository of
ALL knowledge and truth on the issue. Attacking everything I said as
ignorant and wrong. Typical Usenet bullshit we read so often.
Larry has been claiming "IT WASN'T ME" "I NEVER POSTED THERE."
"PANGBORN IS A LIAR." I allowed Larry to get by for a while saying that I
wouldn't pursue it. Just said I would "take his WORD for it." Well I was not
being 100% truthful. I never took his word for it. I KNEW he was lying, but
it just didn't seem worthwhile to me to stink it up, following having to
deal with Kunt Wills. I had though that the VERY IMPORTANT Assistant
District Attorney (ask me if I believe he REALLY is one) would just let it
drop. Instead he chose to become BOLDEN and chide me that he had "MADE" me
admit I was lying. I warned him (like I had warned Moore some years ago) not
to "PLAY." He chose to ignore what I said. So... earlier today I finally
took the time to go to Google and lift a COUPLE of DOZENS of his ranting
posts and stupid claims to only prove the point that his denials of being in
the flame war were LIES. Now If the little prick wants to PUSH IT..........
Then I still start replaying ALL of his arrogant and quite STUPID claims
that the RECORD of FACTS now conclusively proves I was correct - the LOWLY
trial consultant and the HUGE IMPORTANT Assistant District Attorney in NEW
YORK CITY came away with a score;
Stupid Trial Consultant 1
Superior big deal new York City District attorney 0
I can stand on these FACTS. Mike Nifong was DISBARRED for the very
things I said he was doing wrong and that "LARRY" said were GREAT legal
strategy. Mike Nifong was CONVICTED for doing the things I said were wrong
and "LARRY" said were GREAT legal maneuvers, which Larry ALSO said he used
"all the time" in his cases in New York. Here's a statement for you and FOR
LARRY - IF he is a ADA, and IF he uses the Nifong tactics as he claims, then
maybe somebody should give HIS work the same attention that Nifong got??????
Kent Wills
<dsul...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Jul 1, 8:41 am, " krp" <krp24...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Larry appeared in these groups and we sparred a little. I chided him
>> about our "debates" over on alt.true-crime about the Duke Lacrosse case.
>
>You asked if Larrye was in a "flame war" with you over the Duke case..
>
>And he said he wasn't.
Don't forget that Larry asked for just one MID for any of the
posts so that he would know if he did author it.
>
>> Larry denied he did that. As an expedient I allowed it to pass. Largely
>> because it would be one more time consuming pissing contest with dickhead
>> Danny Sullivan. Larry has been taking me on over in misc.legal.
>
>Translation; pangborn is doing his usual smoke and mirror routine on
>misc.legal.
I find it entertaining when Kenny-Bob cross-posts to misc.legal.
>
>> Again
>> playing the role of "I NEVER DID" for all it was worth - thinking he got
>> away with lying because I didn't take him on about it.
>
>Larry didn't claim that he didn't post messages on the subject.
He stated that he posted from misc.legal, and that it's possible
some were cross-posted to alt.true-crime. When asked for just one
MID, Pangborn went kind of silent.
>
>He claimed not to have been in a flame war with you, kenny boy.
>
>> It just didn't seem
>> worth it. But the lying little prick wouldn't let it rest. Being the smarmy
>> jerk he is and feeling his OATS he had to claim that *I* had lied about it.
>> He kept it up for the past few days. I asked him if he was SURE he wanted to
>> "play." And he said he was.
>
>oooOOOooo, and the end result was what anyone would expect.
>
>Pangborn lost because he lied and didn't stick to the facts, yet he
>CLAIMS he WON the argument.
Fairly typical of Pangborn's mind.
>
>> As some of you have seen - I took the gloves off and showed that Larry
>> has been LYING HIS ASS OFF. I copied a couple of DOZENS of his raving posts
>> supporting Mike Nifong and the process.
>
>A couple of dozens???"
>
>"I counted three or four.
You counted higher than I. Kenny-Bob wasn't able to offer even
one post at the time.
>
>And Larry wasn't in a flame war.
>
>He responded calmly with facts and verifiable information.
>
>YOU, piggy, resorted to name calling... and you couldn't even spell
>the names correctly!!!
SOP for Kenny-Bob.
>
>> After Nifong was disbarred and
>> CONVICTED for his misdeeds, you'd think Larry would have the smarts to STFU!
>> Not our Larry who suffers from terminal arrogance and sanctimony! He either
>> felt I couldn't or wouldn't dig the stuff up. BAD BET!
>>
>> So I can see Kent Wills is there supporting Larry. <snicker>
You should read our past comments. You'll find we have violently
disagreed on topics.
Further, Larry doesn't need me to defend him. Certainly not
against someone as ignorant of basic law as you consistently PROVE you
are.
>>I guess you
>> really ARE known by your friends.Larry needs people like Wills and Sullivan.
From http://samvak.tripod.com/mentalhealthdictionary.html#P
Projection
A defense mechanism to cope with internal or external stressors and
emotional conflict by attributing to another person - usually falsely
- thoughts, feelings, wishes, impulses, needs, and hopes deemed
forbidden or unacceptable by the projecting party.
Projective Identification
A defense mechanism to cope with internal or external stressors and
emotional conflict by casting thoughts, feelings, wishes, impulses,
needs, and hopes deemed forbidden or unacceptable by the projecting
party - as justifiable and predictable reactions to another person's
actions or words ("triggers"). The projecting party sometimes induces
in that other person the triggering behavior so as to justify his or
her reactions."
Both fit Kenny-Bob to a T.
>
>I'm just stating the facts, piggy.
>
>Fun, fun, fun!!!!!
>
>TY for inviting me to the party.
>
>BTW here's a classic exchange between pangborn and Larry;
>
>Pangborn wrote "Oh I know all about the "burden of proof" bullshit
>Larry, you can fool others with that crap."
>
>Larry responded with "A trial consultant who calls the burden of proof
>"bullshit"? No wonder you went bankrupt. What defendant would hire a
>trial consultant who advised him, "you know that 'beyond a reasonable
>doubt' stuff? That's bullshit. Don't worry about it."
>
>And pangborn responded with "Yes Larry it is bullshit. It's nice
>sounding words for a WHINEY prosecutor to complain about, but it's
>BULLSHIT in the REAL WORLD of trials."
>
>Larry responds as a gentleman and pangborn responds as if there's a
>flame war going on... no facts, just the usual smoke and mirror
>routine.
Sadly, it's all Pangborn has.
--
"It's attached to a thing called a "WIFE" Betty."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn showing how he views his wife
as an object and NOT a human being.
Message-ID: <KLf2j.31312$9h.4837@trnddc07>
Kent Wills
Why does everyone who has read the threads and commented see it
as something other than a flame war? Is EVERYONE lying, Kenny-Bob?
Has your alcoholic induced mental illness driven you so far?
--
"Maybe he's like me to attach some kiddie porn to aid his fantasies?"
Ken Pangborn expressing his fondness for child porn in Message-ID:
<RECUi.494$Q%3.238@trnddc04>
Kent Wills
>
>"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:22c361a6-4d76-4425...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> Say Dan, What was YOUR opinion on the Duke Lacross case?
>>
>> Did you side with Mike Nifong also?
>>
>> Are you OK with what Mike Nifong did?
>>
>> Just curious.
>>
>> You seem to be your own version of "Larry Loophole", right Dan?
>>
>> Do you think Judges like that sort of stuff?
>> Is it wise strategy to play the loopholes, Dan?
>
> Larry who "claims" to be a BIG TIME TOP ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY in
>new York City who wins ALL of his cases against the BEST defense lawyers in
>New York (yeah right)
Outside of the mental illness you've twice admitted is the result
of your alcoholism, Larry's never made such a claim.
>was claiming he did NOT engage with me over Nifong's
>antics.
He stated he wasn't in a flame war. He was and is correct.
>Not the use of the media, not the phony photo lineup, and long many
>things on the laundry list. He was 100% that the Duke players were guilty as
>hell. He made one personal attack on me after another about me being a
>"trial consultant" and how HE - the GREAT PROSECUTOR was the repository of
>ALL knowledge and truth on the issue.
Outside of the mental illness you've twice admitted is the result
of your alcoholism, Larry's never made such claims.
>Attacking everything I said as
>ignorant and wrong. Typical Usenet bullshit we read so often.
Had he made the claims, they would have been truth, since they
were in regards to you.
>
> Larry has been claiming "IT WASN'T ME" "I NEVER POSTED THERE."
No, he asked you to post the MID for just ONE post so that he
could see if it was him.
>"PANGBORN IS A LIAR."
You are. And?
>I allowed Larry to get by for a while saying that I
>wouldn't pursue it. Just said I would "take his WORD for it." Well I was not
>being 100% truthful.
You're incapable of being truthful.
>I never took his word for it. I KNEW he was lying, but
>it just didn't seem worthwhile to me to stink it up, following having to
>deal with Kunt Wills.
I do have the annoying habit of exposing your lies.
>I had though that the VERY IMPORTANT Assistant
>District Attorney (ask me if I believe he REALLY is one) would just let it
>drop. Instead he chose to become BOLDEN and chide me that he had "MADE" me
>admit I was lying. I warned him (like I had warned Moore some years ago) not
>to "PLAY." He chose to ignore what I said. So... earlier today I finally
>took the time to go to Google and lift a COUPLE of DOZENS of his ranting
>posts and stupid claims to only prove the point that his denials of being in
>the flame war were LIES.
You managed to prove you were LYING about it being a flame war.
>Now If the little prick wants to PUSH IT..........
>Then I still start replaying ALL of his arrogant and quite STUPID claims
>that the RECORD of FACTS now conclusively proves I was correct - the LOWLY
>trial consultant and the HUGE IMPORTANT Assistant District Attorney in NEW
>YORK CITY came away with a score;
>
>Stupid Trial Consultant 1
>
>Superior big deal new York City District attorney 0
Only you would count loses.
>
> I can stand on these FACTS. Mike Nifong was DISBARRED for the very
>things I said he was doing wrong and that "LARRY" said were GREAT legal
>strategy.
When did Larry make such a claim?
Hint: He didn't.
>Mike Nifong was CONVICTED for doing the things I said were wrong
>and "LARRY" said were GREAT legal maneuvers, which Larry ALSO said he used
>"all the time" in his cases in New York.
When did Larry make such a claim?
Hint: He didn't.
>Here's a statement for you and FOR
>LARRY - IF he is a ADA, and IF he uses the Nifong tactics as he claims, then
>maybe somebody should give HIS work the same attention that Nifong got??????
>
Since he never claimed to use the Nifong tactics, outside of your
mental illness that you've twice admitted came about because of your
alcoholism, your lie will have no effect.
"And you RULE OUT that it could be MOORE my biggest
fan and GAY lover."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-Team, LYING
and claiming David Moore is his gay lover. Message-ID:
<_MlOj.598$pH4.7@trnddc06>
krp
"Kadaitcha Man" <nospam.nos...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i9b96o$8e7$k...@alt.graphics.female.ejaculation.co.armenia...
> krp, ye under-fertile chewet, thou is too mean to have thy name
> repeated, ye revealed:
Yeah I am just too MEAN to Larry. :-))))))
krp
"Firemonkey" <firemo...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:31c37244-4bdc-4558...@79g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
Roberta - HATCH YOUR COMPUTER will ya?
Dan Sullivan
> "Greegor" <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:22c361a6-4d76-4425...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Say Dan, What was YOUR opinion on the Duke Lacross case?
>
> > Did you side with Mike Nifong also?
>
> > Are you OK with what Mike Nifong did?
>
> > Just curious.
>
> > You seem to be your own version of "Larry Loophole", right Dan?
>
> > Do you think Judges like that sort of stuff?
> > Is it wise strategy to play the loopholes, Dan?
>
> Larry who "claims" to be a BIG TIME TOP ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY in
> new York City who wins ALL of his cases against the BEST defense lawyers in
> New York (yeah right) was claiming he did NOT engage with me over Nifong's
> antics.
You are WRONG as usual, piggy.
Larry said he wasn't in a flame war with you.
He did NOT say he didn't comment on the Nifong or Duke situation.
krp
AND HE WAS LYING!!! (He also LOST the flame war and left in embarrassment.)
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
And for this we have the word of ken pangborn who claims on his A-Team
web page that his "name appears on the "Wall of Tolerance" signifying
his many years of support for the civil rights movement in America."
When the only names etched on the monument are of the people who died
in the civil rights struggle.
You are a pathetic, hideous turd, pangborn for making that claim.
Kent Wills
<dsul...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Jul 1, 7:42 pm, " krp" <krp24...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> "Greegor" <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:22c361a6-4d76-4425...@f63g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Say Dan, What was YOUR opinion on the Duke Lacross case?
>>
>> > Did you side with Mike Nifong also?
>>
>> > Are you OK with what Mike Nifong did?
>>
>> > Just curious.
>>
>> > You seem to be your own version of "Larry Loophole", right Dan?
>>
>> > Do you think Judges like that sort of stuff?
>> > Is it wise strategy to play the loopholes, Dan?
>>
>> Larry who "claims" to be a BIG TIME TOP ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY in
>> new York City who wins ALL of his cases against the BEST defense lawyers in
>> New York (yeah right) was claiming he did NOT engage with me over Nifong's
>> antics.
>
>You are WRONG as usual, piggy.
He's lying, as usual. The mental illness Kenny-Bob has twice
admitted is the result of his alcoholism makes being honest so
difficult, he rarely bothers trying.
>
>Larry said he wasn't in a flame war with you.
>
>He did NOT say he didn't comment on the Nifong or Duke situation.
Larry acknowledged from the beginning that he may have been
involved in a discussion about the Duke case. Larry only asked for
the MID of one post so that he could know.
Kenny-Bob was never able to post even one MID, since it would
allow those with an interest to investigate Kenny-Bob's LIE that it
was a flame war.
Kent Wills
Liar.
>(He also LOST the flame war and left in embarrassment.)
>
One can't lose a flame war that exists solely within your
alcoholic induced mental illness.
The God of Odd Statements, Henry Schmidt
> "Kadaitcha Man" wrote...
>> krp, ye under-fertile chewet, thou is too mean to have thy name
>> repeated, ye revealed:
>
> Yeah I am just too MEAN to Larry. :-))))))
That's "mean" in the medieval sense, as in a "mean and pitiful beggar".
In the modern sense, you haven't the wit.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! mhm 29x21; TM#5; Chung Convict #28; Usenet Ruiner #5
Demon Lord of Confusion; Official Chung Demon; Top Asshole #3
COOSN-029-06-71069; Most Hated Usenetizen of All Time #13; Lits Slut #16
Gutter Chix0r #17; BowTie's Spuriously Accused Pedo Photographer #4
AUK Psycho & Felon #21; Parrot & Zombie #2; AUK Hate Machine Cog #19
Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18
The posting nym is best removed from my posting address if your goal is
to speak with me in private.
Supreme High Overlord of rec.radio.*
Chuck Lysaght: Tarred & Feathered!
"Atheists are people who have no invisible means of support"
Join my RuneScape clan!
http://z11.invisionfree.com/Holy_Pretzel_Cabal/index.php
Full name of clan: Cabal of the Holy International Discordian Internet
And Usenet Terrorist Pretzel
"I know how you special busboys are.
You're crazy." -- John "special busboy" Wentzky, in Message-ID:
<HMb3k.2413$bh5....@bignews4.bellsouth.net>
"Roe V Wade has zero bearing on my existence other than it affects it
adversely."
-- Johnny Wentzky never had much truck with "logic". Message-ID:
<V6xNe.27650$XM3....@bignews5.bellsouth.net>
"Fredbot == SameAsB4 == TGOOS
"You are stalking me, even after I thrashed ya." -- PorchMonkey4Life,
a veritable combination of Sherlock Holmes and Doc Savage for the 21st
Century. No, really. Would I lie? MID: <zaUqh.2972$E35.415@trnddc02>
"He unleashes a fecal explosion he time he posts. He uses so many nyms
because he gets beaten so easily and so convincingly in flame wars and
tries to hide behind nyms in the hopes of getting a fresh start. To bad
for him that his lameness keep shining through like a beacon for all
tards (e.g., SameAs$B4, Demon Spawn, Barbara's Pus$y, FredBot,
TGOOS, ......, etc)" -- Monkey-man identifies <jitter> as me, among
others, in broken English, in MID: <Z_Xqh.3167$E35.215@trnddc02>
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
Trainer of the above k00k
http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/
"Q: What do you call someone in the White House who is honest, caring,
and well-read?
A: A tourist." -- Anonymous
"It would be offly hard for any of you to abuse me on usenet. Really. I
have the advantage. I could easily turn alt.usenet.kooks into a cesspool
of encoded posts. Bringing the noise ratio up so high as to make the
group worthless. Anybody who can code could do this, why nobody has
bothered before now is beyond me. The ultimate spamming engine..
'BAWAHAHA'" -- Dustbin "Outer Filth" K00k's delusions of grandeur
reached new heights, in Message-ID:
<Xns98355D29419...@69.28.186.121>
"Immorality: The morality of those who are having a better time." -- H.
L. Mencken
"Consider that language a moment. 'Purposefully and materially
supported hostilities against the United States' is in the eye of the
beholder, and this administration has proven itself to be astonishingly
impatient with criticism of any kind. The broad powers given to Bush by
this legislation allow him to capture, indefinitely detain, and refuse a
hearing to any American citizen who speaks out against Iraq or any other
part of the so-called 'War on Terror.'
"If you write a letter to the editor attacking Bush, you could be
deemed as purposefully and materially supporting hostilities against the
United States. If you organize or join a public demonstration against
Iraq, or against the administration, the same designation could befall
you. One dark-comedy aspect of the legislation is that senators or House
members who publicly disagree with Bush, criticize him, or organize
investigations into his dealings could be placed under the same
designation. In effect, Congress just gave Bush the power to lock them
up." -- William Rivers Pitt
"It has become clear in recent months that a critical mass of the American
people have seen through the lies of the Bush administration; with the
president's polls at an historic low, growing resistance to the war Iraq,
and the Democrats likely to take back the Congress in mid-term elections,
the Bush administration is on the ropes. And so it is particularly
worrying that President Bush has seen fit, at this juncture to, in effect,
declare himself dictator." -- Frank Morales
http://www.uruknet.biz/?p=m27769&hd=0&size=1&l=e&fark
"Right you are correct. Someone hooked me. I do believe in building
relationships. That is what Christians are required to do. I am amoral.
I am sure you know what that means. So are Scorpios. I am being
'protected' by the Formosa Rule because of my 'mental illness'. I am not
targeting 'teh Mop Jockey'. You are and you are using me as a bait.
Please stop. I have my own fish to reel in. Leave me alone. It is my hope
that I will be able to catch a fish and reel it in for you. Once my
retired bishop thought I was fishing for him and he took the bait, alas
it wasn't me and that spelled the demise of our relationship. Have a
little bit more faith in me. An Eastern Orthodox bishop thought I was
fishing for him and willingly, proudly and defiantly took the bait on
public record, and it wasn't even me. Give me a break." -- Atlanta
Olympiada "Erica" Kane yammered in
Message-ID: <ochc3.a...@news.alt.net>
"It does to a certain extant physically and theoretically
it holds even into the quantum but there observational confirmation is
limited or non existent. That's the problem and the major stumbling
block to field unification. For Dr. Einstein held out that a physical
based field theory should be sought out and not left to quantum
uncertainty of how the universe primly base works. Man made coordinate
systems are fine without knowing from where or what is the base essence
of what the space as deduced field is composed of, but not totally
satisfactory. Anomalies keep space cropping up and scientists have to
keep adjusting for these unexpected events. It's like a blind man that
has memorized his physical surroundings to a point he feels very
comfortable until that one new or unexpected event pops up and he's lost
and fumbling." -- nightbat, in one of his more lucid moments.
Message-ID: <b27b0$45ed14a7$46e3a646$66...@COMTECK.COM>
To Whom It May Concern: Att'y Michael James Cranston stalker kook, Esq.,
is a dogfucker and Kook of the Month for March 2007
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote his usual bullshit in message
news:361c47c0-96eb-45d6...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> >> > Say Dan, What was YOUR opinion on the Duke Lacross case?
>>
>> >> > Did you side with Mike Nifong also?
>>
>> >> > Are you OK with what Mike Nifong did?
>>
>> >> > Just curious.
>>
>> >> > You seem to be your own version of "Larry Loophole", right Dan?
>>
>> >> > Do you think Judges like that sort of stuff?
>> >> > Is it wise strategy to play the loopholes, Dan?
>>
>> >> Larry who "claims" to be a BIG TIME TOP ASSISTANT DISTRICT
>> >> ATTORNEY
>> >> in
>> >> new York City who wins ALL of his cases against the BEST defense
>> >> lawyers
>> >> in
>> >> New York (yeah right) was claiming he did NOT engage with me over
>> >> Nifong's
>> >> antics.
>>
>> > You are WRONG as usual, piggy.
>>
>> > Larry said he wasn't in a flame war with you.
>>
>> AND HE WAS LYING!!! (He also LOST the flame war and left in
>> embarrassment.)
>
> And for this we have the word of ken pangborn who claims on his A-Team
> web page that his "name appears on the "Wall of Tolerance" signifying
> his many years of support for the civil rights movement in America."
Damn Danny you're stupid. Yesterday I attached several of Larry's ATC posts.
No taking my word for it.
krp
"Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
news:x-0E5484.22...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
> I didn't even need to respond, it appears that everyone who read our
> posts can see right through your empty claims, Ken.
Oh REALLY - such as your denials of having engaged in a flame contest
with me about the Duke case on ATC? You know Larry - I TRIED to give you a
way off the hook. You weren't smart enough to take it. How far down in the
mud does your face need to be before you back off?
krp
>
>> > Say Dan, What was YOUR opinion on the Duke Lacross case?
>> >
>> > Did you side with Mike Nifong also?
>> >
>> > Are you OK with what Mike Nifong did?
>> >
>> > Just curious.
>> >
>> > You seem to be your own version of "Larry Loophole", right Dan?
>> >
>> > Do you think Judges like that sort of stuff?
>> > Is it wise strategy to play the loopholes, Dan?
>>
>> Larry who "claims" to be a BIG TIME TOP ASSISTANT DISTRICT ATTORNEY
>> in
>> new York City who wins ALL of his cases against the BEST defense lawyers
>> in
>> New York (yeah right) was claiming he did NOT engage with me over
>> Nifong's
>> antics.
>
Sure you did the HOTTEST ADA in New York City you NEVER lose a case and
regularly beat all the BIG NAME defense lawyers in the city. When they hear
YOUR NAME they literally piss their pants in FEAR.
> I never claimed I win all (or ALL) of my cases, though I have a very
> high conviction rate.
Not hard Larry boy when 99% of the PD cases are plea bargained. That is
a statistical FACT Larry. They RARELY try a case. When they do they
generally lose. You can BULLSHIT twerps like Sullivan and Wills. But I have
actually worked with PD's around the country. The MOST that the courts would
pay was $25 an hour. And the budget for the PhD expert was $250..........
Tell me again how ROUGH you have it Larry. POOR BAAAAAABEEEEE!
> I never claimed I have tried cases against the best (or BEST) defense
> lawyers in New York. Some very good ones, and some who might be among
> the best, but some who were not very good, too.
Yes you did. "I try against against the best defense lawyers in the city
and win."
> I never claimed I did not engage with you over Nifong's antics. I
> claimed we did not get in a flame war (since war takes two; you lobbed
> flames and personal insults, but I stayed on topic and posted rational
> arguments).
Yeah Larry you DID! You supported the things Nifong did, said YOU do the
same things ALL THE TIME. Funny, Larry, in the end who was RIGHT? YOU?
How many YEARS did the Duke players get? 20? 50? 100? LIFE????? I said
Nifong screwed up the photo lineup, I said he was way out of bounds for
taking the case to the media. I said he was dicking around with evidence.
Now let's time warp back to the present LARRY.. The case gainst the Duke
players was THROWN OUT. Nifong was disbarred for the things that *I* had
said and YOU were defending claiming I didn't know shit and YOU were this
GREAT GREAT GREAT NEW WORK ADA. So Nifong was disbarred, was CONVICTED for
his misdeeds, the ones I said and YOU tried to deny. AND he is in the
process of LOSING a huge lawsuit. You DO know that slick Nifong TRIED
desperately to use bankruptcy to save his ass and LOST on that point.
On futher review of the FACTS Larry for all your RATIONAL ARGUMENTS
<cough> here are the REAL FACTS and not ADA LARRY'S FACTS.
1. Case against defendants dismissed with a finding of "FACTUAL INNOCENCE"
despite your "rational arguments" to the contrary.
2. Nifong disbarred PERMANENTLY for the unethical behavior I detained which
YOU endorsed and said YOU USED "all the time."
3. Nifong convicted of lying to the court etc.
3. Nifong is being sued.
4. Duke University paid a large settlement to the players.
5. The county has paid a settlement to the players.
6. There is a suit PENDING against yuour HERO Mike Nifong that he WILL LOSE!
Now Larry, my man, you like to claim you used "well reasoned" and calmy
reasoned arguments. How come NONE of them turned out to be accureate in the
end, eh Larry? How come if I was so "IGNORANT" and a "stupid trial
consultant that doesn;t know anything" how come I was right on ALL of the
issues you TRIED - of GREATEST ADA IN THE WORLD - to argue with me? IF as
you clasim you were so SUPERIOR whay didn't you get anything right?
> How many more lies will you utter?
Sad for you, I'm NOT lying YOU ARE!
>> Not the use of the media, not the phony photo lineup, and long many
>> things on the laundry list. He was 100% that the Duke players were guilty
>> as
>> hell. He made one personal attack on me after another about me being a
>> "trial consultant"
> You do seem to be a piss-poor trial consultant.
Yeah terrible, then how come thnis "PISS POOR TRIAL CONSULTANT" was
right and the WORLD'S GRATEST ADA was wrong on all counts?
Got a smart assed answer Larry? You not only said that using the media as
Nifong did was not only ethical, BUT that you had a whole MASSIVE media
relations department that worked for you? How come if his photo lineup was
so "ETHICAL" as you claimed it was a central part of the basis for him being
disbarred? Of course YOU said that YOU routinely use the SAME proceedure.
Care to deny it now, Larry? (That'd be a good idea Larry while you have the
chance.)
>> and how HE - the GREAT PROSECUTOR was the repository of
>> ALL knowledge and truth on the issue.
> On what issue? I'd posit the theory that I do know more about criminal
> law than you (see, for example, your absurd claims in our discussion of
> whether the Bill of Rights always applied to states), but I'll leave it
> to each reader to make up their own mind on the question.
Larry did you actually READ your source? Id suggest you do, and plase
don't stop reading when your dick gets hard. Read the rest of the decision.
krp
>> >>> Say Dan, What was YOUR opinion on the Duke Lacross case?
>> >>>
>> >>> Did you side with Mike Nifong also?
>> >>>
>> >>> Are you OK with what Mike Nifong did?
>> >>>
>> >>> Just curious.
>> >>>
>> >>> You seem to be your own version of "Larry Loophole", right Dan?
>> >>>
>> >>> Do you think Judges like that sort of stuff?
>> >>> Is it wise strategy to play the loopholes, Dan?
>> >>
>> >> Larry who "claims" to be a BIG TIME TOP ASSISTANT DISTRICT
>> >> ATTORNEY in new York City
>> >
>> > hasn't said which one, but he has said it isn't New York County
>> > (Manhattan)
>>
>> No he has said it IS Manhattan.
>
> No wonder everyone here calls you a liar - it seems that you are.
Larry - go back and read your posts on ATC. I have already PROVED that you
LIED about being in a flamefest with me. How many other LIES of yours do I
need to line up?
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote his usual bullshit in messagenews:361c47c0-96eb-45d6...@26g2000hsk.googlegroups.com...
I read Larry's messages. HE wasn't in a flame war.
And yesterday you claimed "I copied a couple of DOZENS of his raving
posts... " which today has turned into "several" when the actual count
was three or four.
And Larry wasn't "raving" in his messages at all.
Dan Sullivan
Your claim of several dozen posts from yesterday has shrunk to three
or four today, pangborn.
You don't EXAGGERATE, do you?
Dan Sullivan
Pangborn - you are so full of shit, when you were born your mother
didn't wrap you in a baby blanket, she wrapped you in toilet paper.
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> lied again in message
news:bfdd0892-dcf6-4f4d...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> I read Larry's messages. HE wasn't in a flame war.
Oh it's simple Danny. OU ARE LYING AGAIN!
> And yesterday you claimed "I copied a couple of DOZENS of his raving
> posts... " which today has turned into "several" when the actual count
> was three or four.
Hey WEENIE I coupld a couple OF DOZENS of his raving posts. Read English
much?
> And Larry wasn't "raving" in his messages at all.
YEAH RIGHT!
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> lied again in messagenews:bfdd0892-dcf6-4f4d...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I read Larry's messages. HE wasn't in a flame war.
>
> Oh it's simple Danny. OU ARE LYING AGAIN!
"OU?"
> > And yesterday you claimed "I copied a couple of DOZENS of his raving
> > posts... " which today has turned into "several" when the actual count
> > was three or four.
>
> Hey WEENIE I coupld a couple OF DOZENS of his raving posts. Read English
> much?
"coupld?"
> > And Larry wasn't "raving" in his messages at all.
>
> YEAH RIGHT!
Glad you agree.
Kent Wills
[...]
>>> AND HE WAS LYING!!! (He also LOST the flame war and left in
>>> embarrassment.)
>>
>> And for this we have the word of ken pangborn who claims on his A-Team
>> web page that his "name appears on the "Wall of Tolerance" signifying
>> his many years of support for the civil rights movement in America."
>
>
>Damn Danny you're stupid. Yesterday I attached several of Larry's ATC posts.
>No taking my word for it.
How does you proving you LIED about a flame war prove anyone lost
the non-existent flame war?
Kent Wills
>
>"Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
>news:x-0E5484.22...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>
>> I didn't even need to respond, it appears that everyone who read our
>> posts can see right through your empty claims, Ken.
>
> Oh REALLY - such as your denials of having engaged in a flame contest
>with me about the Duke case on ATC?
The very posts you cite PROVE it wasn't a flame
war/contest/whatever.
>You know Larry - I TRIED to give you a
>way off the hook. You weren't smart enough to take it. How far down in the
>mud does your face need to be before you back off?
>
You've yet to even get Larry to the soil.
Kent Wills
How does your proving YOU lied about it prove that Larry lied? Be
specific as I doubt those who do not share your mental illness will
see it. I can assure you I don't.
>How many other LIES of yours do I
>need to line up?
>
You should line up one, then you can go about with others.
Kent Wills
He flat out LIES.
Dan Sullivan
All you proved, piggy, was that YOU were in your usual flame fest
mode... all by YOURSELF!!!
Larry's messages are calm and on topic.
> How many other LIES of yours do I need to line up?
You could start with one, piggy, but that's an impossibility.
Dan Sullivan
> On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 04:16:22 -0700 (PDT), Dan Sullivan
>
>
>
> <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >On Jul 2, 4:33 am, " krp" <krp24...@verizon.net> wrote:
> >> "Larry" <x...@y.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:x-0E5484.22...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net...
>
> >> > I didn't even need to respond, it appears that everyone who read our
> >> > posts can see right through your empty claims, Ken.
>
> >> Oh REALLY - such as your denials of having engaged in a flame contest
> >> with me about the Duke case on ATC? You know Larry - I TRIED to give you a
> >> way off the hook. You weren't smart enough to take it. How far down in the
> >> mud does your face need to be before you back off?
>
> >Your claim of several dozen posts from yesterday has shrunk to three
> >or four today, pangborn.
>
> >You don't EXAGGERATE, do you?
>
> He flat out LIES.
It's amazing to me that none of the people he's conned into paying him
THOUSANDS of dollars for his expertise (in bulkshitting) has inflicted
grievoius bodily harm on him.
I also can't imagine anyone with at least an eighth grade education
reading pigborn's web pages and NOT catching on that ken pangborn is a
complete fraud and (extremely obvious) con artist, in fact ken ASPIRES
to be a complete fraud and con artist.
Even the picture on his web site... he has a look on his face like...
I hope you have money or a lot of credit cards and no brains, because
that's exactly the kind of person I need to sign my retainer agreement.
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote his usual insane bullshit in
message
news:fc7a5cd5-e33c-44b3...@z66g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...e:
>
>> Larry - go back and read your posts on ATC. I have already PROVED that
>> you
>> LIED about being in a flamefest with me.
> Larry's messages are calm and on topic.
And 100% WRONG. Calm? That's in the eye of the beholder.
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote his usual manly man bullshit
in message
news:0aefdd2a-14c9-4397...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
> I also can't imagine anyone with at least an eighth grade education
> reading pigborn's web pages and NOT catching on that ken pangborn is a
> complete fraud and (extremely obvious) con artist, in fact ken ASPIRES
> to be a complete fraud and con artist.
>
> Even the picture on his web site... he has a look on his face like...
> I hope you have money or a lot of credit cards and no brains, because
> that's exactly the kind of person I need to sign my retainer agreement.
Tell me something Sullivan - do you do ANYTHING in your days buy eat,
shit and OBSESS about me?
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote his usual manly man bullshit
> in messagenews:0aefdd2a-14c9-4397...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>
> > I also can't imagine anyone with at least an eighth grade education
> > reading pigborn's web pages and NOT catching on that ken pangborn is a
> > complete fraud and (extremely obvious) con artist, in fact ken ASPIRES
> > to be a complete fraud and con artist.
>
> > Even the picture on his web site... he has a look on his face like...
> > I hope you have money or a lot of credit cards and no brains, because
> > that's exactly the kind of person I need to sign my retainer agreement.
>
> Tell me something Sullivan - do you do ANYTHING in your days buy eat,
> shit and OBSESS about me?
Interesting that you don't dispute that's the look on your face.
Greegor
KW > twice admitted is the result of your
KW > alcoholism, Larry's never made such a claim.
Firstly, Kent, why the heck are you so
certain about what somebody else didn't say?
How do you PROVE the absence of such
statements?
On the other hand, you have positively asserted
that Ken claimed or admitted to mental illness or alcoholism.
Got a LINK to where Ken said that?
http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
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
KW > that exists solely within your
KW > alcoholic induced mental illness.
I would think that falsely asserting alcoholism
on the part of an opponent would be rather
a bad choice for an immigrant from Poland
or Russia.
Dan Sullivan
But not from anyone else?
Dan Sullivan
Kent Wills
Fortunately for me, Kenny-Bob has twice admitted that the mental
illness he has is the result of his alcoholism.
I see GregWhore is still stalking and harassing the regulars of
alt.friends. How very sad for him.
"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."
-- GregWhore Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child
abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
Kent Wills
wrote:
>KW > Outside of the mental illness you've
>KW > twice admitted is the result of your
>KW > alcoholism, Larry's never made such a claim.
>
>Firstly, Kent, why the heck are you so
>certain about what somebody else didn't say?
It's summer, and Google is our friend. While The Princess naps,
I can spend time looking for proof that Kenny-Bob has once again lied.
I suspect you've looked for it and also found the claim doesn't
exist. I can't know this, of course.
>
>How do you PROVE the absence of such
>statements?
The fact that it doesn't appear in the archive. Larry doesn't
use X-No-Archive: Yes. Further, he uses a bogus E-mail. He couldn't
have nuked it.
But if you can post the MID and/or Google link, do so and prove
me wrong.
>
>On the other hand, you have positively asserted
>that Ken claimed or admitted to mental illness or alcoholism.
He's admitted to it twice.
>Got a LINK to where Ken said that?
>
Sure do. And as soon as I see a link from you to the non-existent
picture of David dressed as a Nazi, I'll post it.
Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
alt.friends? You've yet to answer, preferring to play the avoidance
game.
Please explain why you are compelled to stalk and harass past and
current members of alt.friends.
A small sample of the wife and child abuser, Gregory Scott Hanson's
record:
Case ID Title Name DOB Role
06571 AGCR015216 STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREG SCOTT HANSON GREGORY
05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 SCSC123709 FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INS CO VS GREGORY SCOTT HANSON
HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 SCSC139229 EAGLE PROP MGT VS GREGORY HANSON & LISA WATKINS
HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 SCSC139230 EAGLE PROP MGT VS GREGORY HANSON & LISA WATKINS
HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 SCSC141447 EAGLE PROPERTY MNGT VS LISA WATKINS ET AL HANSON
GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 SCSC141448 EAGLE PROPERTY MNGT VS LISA WATKINS ET AL HANSON
GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 SMSM004543 STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREG SCOTT HANSON GREGORY
05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 SMSM008629 STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREGORY S HANSON GREGORY
05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 STCR429489 STATE OF IOWA vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON
GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 STCR441449 STATE OF IOWA vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON
GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571CRSTCR146191 CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON
GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571CRSTCR214087 CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON
GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571MASTWG261061 CITY OF MARION vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON
GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
Kent Wills
wrote:
>KW > One can't lose a flame war
Lucky for me Kenny-Bob has admitted to being an alcoholic on two
occasions of which I am aware. There may be more, but I only know of
two.
Another of your veiled threats fail. I'm certain you're used to
it. What with failure being the motif of your life.
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote another insane claim in
message
news:182456c7-3cf7-44c4...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> > I also can't imagine anyone with at least an eighth grade education
>> > reading pigborn's web pages and NOT catching on that ken pangborn is a
>> > complete fraud and (extremely obvious) con artist, in fact ken ASPIRES
>> > to be a complete fraud and con artist.
>>
>> > Even the picture on his web site... he has a look on his face like...
>> > I hope you have money or a lot of credit cards and no brains, because
>> > that's exactly the kind of person I need to sign my retainer agreement.
>>
>> Tell me something Sullivan - do you do ANYTHING in your days buy eat,
>> shit and OBSESS about me?
> Interesting that you don't dispute that's the look on your face.
hat delusion is it that you have Sullivan that if I choose not to answer
any of your INSANE claims that I am admitting to them? I don't care how
many times you tell me - "I SO HORNY - - ME LOVE YOU LONG TIME!" I'm NOT
interested Sullivan. Kent Wills could use a date, however.
krp
"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:791f7707-2523-4687...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
KW > Outside of the mental illness you've
KW > twice admitted is the result of your
KW > alcoholism, Larry's never made such a claim.
Firstly, Kent, why the heck are you so
certain about what somebody else didn't say?
How do you PROVE the absence of such
statements?
On the other hand, you have positively asserted
that Ken claimed or admitted to mental illness or alcoholism.
Got a LINK to where Ken said that?
===============================
Wills claims that I have "admitted" to alcoholism is just one more of
his mental aberrations Greg. He has MANY. Larry DID make claims that he
never engaged me on the Duke case over on ATC. HE WAS LYING.
Don't hold your breath waiting for those LINKS Greg.
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> stupidly wrote in message
news:0a012f0a-eee3-439c...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
No it'd be pretty stupid from a mick street punk from New York Too DANNY
DIPSHIT.
Greegor
KW > that exists solely within your
KW > alcoholic induced mental illness.
G > I would think that falsely asserting alcoholism
G > on the part of an opponent would be rather
G > a bad choice for an immigrant from Poland
G > or Russia.
KW > Lucky for me Kenny-Bob has admitted
KW > to being an alcoholic on two occasions
KW > of which I am aware. There may be
KW > more, but I only know of two.
And YET you still haven't posted a LINK to that.
KW > Another of your veiled threats fail.
Please cite and LINK to where I made veiled threats.
http://www.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html
alt.friends birthday list Names are in no particular order.
13 Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) Jan 8, 1969 compuelf at gmail
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/DefaultFrame
( Start a case search here. )
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/SelectFrame
( Trial Court - Case Search )
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/TrialSimpFrame
( Wills (Tab key) Kent (Tab key) Bradley (Search) )
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT B WILLS WILLS, KENT BRADLEY 01/08/1969
DEFENDANT
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS WILLS, KENT BRADLEY
01/08/1969 DEFENDANT
05771 STAN201670 STATE OF IOWA vs WILLS, KENT BRADLEY WILLS, KENT
BRADLEY 01/08/1969 DEFENDANT
05771 STAN210929 STATE OF IOWA vs WILLS, KENT BRADLEY WILLS, KENT
BRADLEY 01/08/1969 DEFENDANT
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT B WILLS WILLS, KENT BRADLEY 01/08/1969
DEFENDANT
05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT WILLS WILLS, KENT
DEFENDANT
05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT WILLS WILLS, KENT
DEFENDANT
05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRESIDENT/RICHARD BURGESS VS KENT
WILLS WILLS, KENT DEFENDANT
05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRESIDENT/RICHARD BURGESS VS KENT
WILLS WILLS, KENT DEFENDANT
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
Name Kent Bradley Wills Offender Number 1155768
Sex M Birth Date 01/08/1969 Age 39 Location Interstate Compact
Offense BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE County Of Commitment Polk
Commitment Date 01/16/2004 Duration TDD/SDD * 01/16/2009
* TDD = Tentative Discharge Date * SDD = Supervision Discharge Date
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk Probation C Felony
Polk
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 11/25/2003
Greegor
KW > twice admitted is the result of your
KW > alcoholism, Larry's never made such a claim.
G > Firstly, Kent, why the heck are you so
G > certain about what somebody else didn't say?
G >
G > How do you PROVE the absence of such
G > statements?
G >
G > On the other hand, you have positively
G > asserted that Ken claimed or admitted
G > to mental illness or alcoholism.
G > Got a LINK to where Ken said that?
KRP > Wills claims that I have "admitted"
KRP > to alcoholism is just one more of
KRP > his mental aberrations Greg. He
KRP > has MANY. Larry DID make claims
KRP > that he never engaged me on the
KRP > Duke case over on ATC.
KRP > HE WAS LYING.
KRP >
KRP > Don't hold your breath waiting for
KRP > those LINKS Greg.
Kent already whipped up the usual smoke and mirrors.
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote another insane claim in
> messagenews:182456c7-3cf7-44c4...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >> > I also can't imagine anyone with at least an eighth grade education
> >> > reading pigborn's web pages and NOT catching on that ken pangborn is a
> >> > complete fraud and (extremely obvious) con artist, in fact ken ASPIRES
> >> > to be a complete fraud and con artist.
>
> >> > Even the picture on his web site... he has a look on his face like...
> >> > I hope you have money or a lot of credit cards and no brains, because
> >> > that's exactly the kind of person I need to sign my retainer agreement.
>
> >> Tell me something Sullivan - do you do ANYTHING in your days buy eat,
> >> shit and OBSESS about me?
> > Interesting that you don't dispute that's the look on your face.
>
> hat delusion is it that you have Sullivan that if I choose not to answer
> any of your INSANE claims that I am admitting to them? I don't care how
> many times you tell me - "I SO HORNY - - ME LOVE YOU LONG TIME!"
You're confused, piggy.
That was an email I got from your wife that I forwarded to you.
If you can't satisfy her, why don't you give her a divorce.
Greegor
DS > WITH DAN SULLIVAN! SHE EMAILED
DS > "I SO HORNY - - ME LOVE YOU LONG TIME!"
Is this an example of your strategic genius, Dan?
Firemonkey
I have added what you snipped
krp View profile
More options Jul 3, 2:33 am
Newsgroups: soc.men, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, alt.support.child-
protective-services, alt.true-crime, misc.legal
From: " krp" <krp24...@verizon.net>
Date: Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:33:20 GMT
Local: Thurs, Jul 3 2008 2:33 am
Subject: Re: DAN SULLIVAN'S SEXUAL OBSESSION WITH KEN PANGBORN
Reply | Reply to author | Forward | Print | Individual message | Show
original | Report this message | Find messages by this author
"Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote another insane claim in
message
news:
182456c7-3cf7-44c4...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> > I also can't imagine anyone with at least an eighth grade education
>> > reading pigborn's web pages and NOT catching on that ken pangborn is a
>> > complete fraud and (extremely obvious) con artist, in fact ken ASPIRES
>> > to be a complete fraud and con artist.
>> > Even the picture on his web site... he has a look on his face like...
>> > I hope you have money or a lot of credit cards and no brains, because
>> > that's exactly the kind of person I need to sign my retainer agreement.
>> Tell me something Sullivan - do you do ANYTHING in your days buy eat,
>> shit and OBSESS about me?
> Interesting that you don't dispute that's the look on your face.
hat delusion is it that you have Sullivan that if I choose not to
answer
any of your INSANE claims that I am admitting to them? I don't care
how
Dan Sullivan
> On Jul 3, 3:33 am, " krp" <krp24...@verizon.net> wrote:
<<<snip>>>
> > I don't care how
> > many times you tell me - "I SO HORNY - - ME LOVE YOU LONG TIME!"
>
> You're confused, piggy.
>
> That was an email I got from your wife that I forwarded to you.
>
> If you can't satisfy her, why don't you give her a divorce.
Or at least give your wife a pocket rocket... not a used one from your
daughter's porn videos.
Or put a bag over your head and make believe your someone else.
And stop the snorting and grunting.
She says you sound like a rutting pig!!!
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote his usual sleazy shit in
message
news:76bb9fc7-549f-4735...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> >> Tell me something Sullivan - do you do ANYTHING in your days buy
>> >> eat,
>> >> shit and OBSESS about me?
>> > Interesting that you don't dispute that's the look on your face.
>>
>> hat delusion is it that you have Sullivan that if I choose not to
>> answer
>> any of your INSANE claims that I am admitting to them? I don't care how
>> many times you tell me - "I SO HORNY - - ME LOVE YOU LONG TIME!"
>
> You're confused, piggy.
>
> That was an email I got from your wife that I forwarded to you.
>
> If you can't satisfy her, why don't you give her a divorce.
Sullivan you also seem never to allow a day to pass where you don't
prove what low life SCUM you are.
krp
It's another example of how HONEST Danny Sullivan ISN'T!
krp
G > I would think that falsely asserting alcoholism
G > on the part of an opponent would be rather
G > a bad choice for an immigrant from Poland
G > or Russia.
KW > Lucky for me Kenny-Bob has admitted
KW > to being an alcoholic on two occasions
KW > of which I am aware. There may be
KW > more, but I only know of two.
I NEVER made any such "admission" Willis is a LIAR!
G> And YET you still haven't posted a LINK to that.
He hasn't because his ONLY source on that is DAVID DIPSHIT MOORE. It's
simple, if I have that LONG LONG LONG LONG string of DUI's that one of the
coven could find it. Betty spent days pouring over Florida public records
and couldn't find even ONE. Of course because there isn't one. I haven't
been any kind of drinker since I got out of the Air Force over 40 years ago.
Even then I wasn't what you cold call a drinker. I HATED the taste of beer
and hard liquor, and I still do. I can "tolerate" part of a good German beer
with a German meal maybe once every 4 or 5 years. Most of the time Coca Cola
is the hardest stuff I ever drink.
Kunt knows this, but he and his pals (Moore and Sullivan) are compulsive
liars.
krp
A polite way of saying he's LYING HIS ASS OFF AGAIN! Which is why he's in
my killfile.
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote his usual sleazy shit in
> messagenews:76bb9fc7-549f-4735...@x35g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
YOU started this, piggy, by posting "I don't care how many times you
tell me - "I SO HORNY - - ME LOVE YOU LONG TIME!" I'm NOT interested
Sullivan."
I'm simply following your lead.
If you can't take the heat, stay out of the kitchen!!!
Dan Sullivan
> "Greegor" <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
YOU started this, piggy, by posting "I don't care how many times you
tell me - "I SO HORNY - - ME LOVE YOU LONG TIME!" I'm NOT interested
Sullivan."
I'm simply following your lead.
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> again acted like a low life in
message
news:767e28b5-96bb-4f14...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>> >> that delusion is it that you have Sullivan that if I choose not to
>>> >> answer
>> >> any of your INSANE claims that I am admitting to them? I don't care
>> >> how
>> >> many times you tell me - "I SO HORNY - - ME LOVE YOU LONG TIME!"
>> > You're confused, piggy.
>> > That was an email I got from your wife that I forwarded to you.
TYPICAL Dan SUllivan display of his total lack of honesty.
>> > If you can't satisfy her, why don't you give her a divorce.
>
>> Sullivan you also seem never to allow a day to pass where you don't
>> prove what low life SCUM you are.
>
> YOU started this, piggy, by posting "I don't care how many times you
> tell me - "I SO HORNY - - ME LOVE YOU LONG TIME!" I'm NOT interested
> Sullivan."
>
> I'm simply following your lead. If you can't take the heat, stay out of
> the kitchen!!!
Sullivan is that your best defense for lying?
tjab
Is this really "a small sample," or are you lying and it's everything
you could find? In the course of your research, did you bother to look
in the official records for the outcomes of any of these cases?
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> again acted like a low life in
> messagenews:767e28b5-96bb-4f14...@b1g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
Why should I have to defend what I post when all I did was volley back
to you what you sent to me???
tjab
>wrote:
>
>>KW > Outside of the mental illness you've
>>KW > twice admitted is the result of your
>>KW > alcoholism, Larry's never made such a claim.
>>
>>Firstly, Kent, why the heck are you so
>>certain about what somebody else didn't say?
>
> It's summer, and Google is our friend. While The Princess naps,
>I can spend time looking for proof that Kenny-Bob has once again lied.
> I suspect you've looked for it and also found the claim doesn't
>exist. I can't know this, of course.
>
>>
>>How do you PROVE the absence of such
>>statements?
>
> The fact that it doesn't appear in the archive. Larry doesn't
>use X-No-Archive: Yes.
Liar.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/097e472af5ddd28e
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 20:58:42 -0500
From: Larry <x...@y.com>
Newsgroups: misc.legal
Subject: Re: TV Show Speeders
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.4 (PPC Mac OS X)
X-No-Archive: Yes
Date: Tue, 01 Jul 2008 21:58:44 -0400
Message-ID: <x-B1F73F.21...@earthlink.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>
Lines: 22
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
NNTP-Posting-Host: 67.84.170.54
Greegor
DS > I post when all I did was volley back
DS > to you what you sent to me???
Pangborn hasn't recently commented about your wife.
Firemonkey
So what? I don't get you dip whips code of dishonor. Please share the
rules gag. Its okay to force another mans 6 year old daughter into a
cold shower ... but not okay to make a remark about another mans wife
after he has called you a homosexual?
You make less sense every day gag.
Nomen Nescio
Newsgroups:
soc.men,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.true-crime
Subject: KENNY THE DA - KENNY THE LIAR
Larry appeared in these groups and we sparred a little. I chided him
about our "debates" over on alt.true-crime about the Duke Lacrosse case.
Larry denied he did that. As an expedient I allowed it to pass.
Kenny you don't "allow" anything. You are the most disrespected man on
earth. This includes Saddam Hussein, George Bush, Bert Roling, Adolph
Hitler, Goebles, Joan Rivers, Newt Gingrich, Michael Crook, Robert
Soloway, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Osama Bin Laden,Michael Jackson, Scott
Peterson, Rasputin, Crippen, Tim McVeigh, Kevin Baldwin, the dude who
killed Jon Benet Ramsey and Barry Manilow. There isn't a single person
on earth, including your wife and kids who gives a fuck about what you
think, feel or say, so your contention that you "allowed" anything to
pass is bullshit. YOU are bullshit. You are pure shit.
krp
What wife? I thought he only had a CAT.
krp
"tjab" <tj...@wam.umd.edu> wrote in message
news:g4j8ku$8...@rac2.wam.umd.edu...
PLEASE don't confuse Kunt Wills with FACTS. He loves to believe his
delusional LIES sell like hot cakes.
Still waiting to see his PROOF that I have admitted to alcoholism AND my
alleged DUI's..
krp
"Nomen Nescio" <nob...@dizum.com> wrote in message
news:c70964e08fa11b12...@dizum.com...
> Larry appeared in these groups and we sparred a little. I chided him
> about our "debates" over on alt.true-crime about the Duke Lacrosse case.
> Larry denied he did that. As an expedient I allowed it to pass.
> Kenny you don't "allow" anything. You are the most disrespected man on
> earth. This includes Saddam Hussein, George Bush, Bert Roling, Adolph
> Hitler, Goebles, Joan Rivers, Newt Gingrich, Michael Crook, Robert
> Soloway, Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, Osama Bin Laden,Michael Jackson, Scott
> Peterson, Rasputin, Crippen, Tim McVeigh, Kevin Baldwin, the dude who
> killed Jon Benet Ramsey and Barry Manilow. There isn't a single person
> on earth, including your wife and kids who gives a fuck about what you
> think, feel or say, so your contention that you "allowed" anything to
> pass is bullshit. YOU are bullshit. You are pure shit.
My God that's quite a list Davey. Stay up all night thinking it up?
Greegor
> From: " krp" Ken Pangborn, the nutter<krp24...@verizon.net>
> Newsgroups:
> Subject: KENNY THE DA - KENNY THE LIAR
>
> Larry appeared in these groups and we sparred a little. I chided him
> about our "debates" over on alt.true-crime about the Duke Lacrosse case.
> Larry denied he did that. As an expedient I allowed it to pass.
DM > Kenny you don't "allow" anything. You
DM > are the most disrespected man on earth.
DM > This includes Saddam Hussein, George
DM > Bush, Bert Roling, Adolph Hitler, Goebles,
DM > Joan Rivers, Newt Gingrich, Michael
DM > Crook, Robert Soloway, Khalid Shaikh
DM > Mohammed, Osama Bin Laden,Michael
DM > Jackson, Scott Peterson, Rasputin,
DM > Crippen, Tim McVeigh, Kevin Baldwin,
DM > the dude who killed Jon Benet Ramsey
DM > and Barry Manilow. There isn't a single
DM > person on earth, including your wife
DM > and kids who gives a fuck about what
DM > you think, feel or say, so your
DM > contention that you "allowed" anything
DM > to pass is bullshit. YOU are bullshit.
DM > You are pure shit.
There there! Let it all out Dave!
Tell us how you REALLY feel! LOL
How's the plea bargain going, by the way, Dave?
Dan Sullivan
> From: " krp" Ken Pangborn, the nutter<krp24...@verizon.net>
> Newsgroups:
> soc.men,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.child-protective-services,alt.true-crime
> Subject: KENNY THE DA - KENNY THE LIAR
>
> Larry appeared in these groups and we sparred a little. I chided him
> about our "debates" over on alt.true-crime about the Duke Lacrosse case.
> Larry denied he did that. As an expedient I allowed it to pass.
The real truth is, piggy, you asked Larry if he was in a flame war
with you over the Duke case... and Larry said "no."
And he said "no" because his messages were calm and on topic,
obviously he wasn't in a flame war with anyone.
YOU, OTOH, were your usual self... IOW in a flame war with everybody.
Kent Wills
>
>"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:791f7707-2523-4687...@c58g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>KW > Outside of the mental illness you've
>KW > twice admitted is the result of your
>KW > alcoholism, Larry's never made such a claim.
>
>Firstly, Kent, why the heck are you so
>certain about what somebody else didn't say?
>
>How do you PROVE the absence of such
>statements?
>
>On the other hand, you have positively asserted
>that Ken claimed or admitted to mental illness or alcoholism.
>Got a LINK to where Ken said that?
>
>===============================
>
> Wills claims that I have "admitted" to alcoholism is just one more of
>his mental aberrations Greg. He has MANY. Larry DID make claims that he
>never engaged me on the Duke case over on ATC. HE WAS LYING.
>
> Don't hold your breath waiting for those LINKS Greg.
>
>
Projection is a very bad thing, Kenny-Bob.
--
"We'd like to arrange for YOUR rape..."
--Kenneth Robert Pangborn of KRP Consulting, from an argument with a
woman on the talk.rape newsgroup
Kent Wills
wrote:
>KW > Outside of the mental illness you've
That you see truth as smoke and mirrors is a sad commentary on
your values.
http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated
following and harassing of another person" (Meloy, 1998).
By that definition, Mr. Probert, I could claim that
you and others are stalking me.
-- Greg Hanson
Message-ID: <1150922197.4...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Kent Wills
wrote:
>KW > One can't lose a flame war
>KW > that exists solely within your
>KW > alcoholic induced mental illness.
>
>G > I would think that falsely asserting alcoholism
>G > on the part of an opponent would be rather
>G > a bad choice for an immigrant from Poland
>G > or Russia.
>
>KW > Lucky for me Kenny-Bob has admitted
>KW > to being an alcoholic on two occasions
>KW > of which I am aware. There may be
>KW > more, but I only know of two.
>
>And YET you still haven't posted a LINK to that.
You will have already seen the posts, but once you post the link
to the picture of David dressed as a Nazi, I'll be posting all sorts
of links for you, archive monkey.
>
>KW > Another of your veiled threats fail.
>
>Please cite and LINK to where I made veiled threats.
>
" I would think that falsely asserting alcoholism on the part of an
opponent would be rather a bad choice for an immigrant from Poland or
Russia."
-- Gregory "Wife and Child abuser" Scott Hanson
Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
alt.friends? You've consistently refused to answer the question,
opting, on those occasions when you are able to acknowledge the
question, to play the avoidance game.
Please answer the question now.
--
"I am erudite [sic] but not Buckelyesque"
GregWhore Hanson, Jan 22, 2008
>
>
>
>http://www.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html
>
>alt.friends birthday list Names are in no particular order.
>13 Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) Jan 8, 1969 compuelf at gmail
>
>http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us
>http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/DefaultFrame
>( Start a case search here. )
>http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/SelectFrame
>( Trial Court - Case Search )
>http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/TrialSimpFrame
>( Wills (Tab key) Kent (Tab key) Bradley (Search) )
>
>05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT B WILLS WILLS, KENT BRADLEY 01/08/1969
>DEFENDANT
>05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS WILLS, KENT BRADLEY
>01/08/1969 DEFENDANT
>
>05771 STAN201670 STATE OF IOWA vs WILLS, KENT BRADLEY WILLS, KENT
>BRADLEY 01/08/1969 DEFENDANT
>05771 STAN210929 STATE OF IOWA vs WILLS, KENT BRADLEY WILLS, KENT
>BRADLEY 01/08/1969 DEFENDANT
>05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT B WILLS WILLS, KENT BRADLEY 01/08/1969
>DEFENDANT
>
>05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT WILLS WILLS, KENT
>DEFENDANT
>05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT WILLS WILLS, KENT
>DEFENDANT
>05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRESIDENT/RICHARD BURGESS VS KENT
>WILLS WILLS, KENT DEFENDANT
>05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRESIDENT/RICHARD BURGESS VS KENT
>WILLS WILLS, KENT DEFENDANT
>
>http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
>
>Name Kent Bradley Wills Offender Number 1155768
>Sex M Birth Date 01/08/1969 Age 39 Location Interstate Compact
>Offense BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE County Of Commitment Polk
>Commitment Date 01/16/2004 Duration TDD/SDD * 01/16/2009
>* TDD = Tentative Discharge Date * SDD = Supervision Discharge Date
>Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
>Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk Probation C Felony
>Polk
>Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
>Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 11/25/2003
>
>http://judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp
>
>IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
>No. 31 / 04-0202
>Filed May 6, 2005
>
>STATE OF IOWA,
> Appellee,
>vs.
>KENT BRADLEY WILLS,
> Appellant.
>
>Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk County, Michael D.
>Huppert, Judge.
>
> Defendant appeals claiming ineffective assistance of
>counsel. AFFIRMED.
>
>Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender, and Tricia Johnston,
>Assistant State Appellate Defender, for appellant.
>
>Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin Cmelik, Assistant Attorney
>General, John P. Sarcone, County Attorney, and John Judisch, Assistant
>County Attorney, for appellee.
>
>WIGGINS, Justice.
>
>Kent Wills appeals his conviction for second-degree burglary
>contending that an attached garage is a separate occupied structure
>from that of the living quarters of the residence. In this appeal, we
>must determine whether trial counsel was ineffective for (1) failing
>to move for judgment of acquittal on the basis there was insufficient
>evidence to convict Wills of second-degree burglary when he entered an
>attached garage of a residence when no persons were present in the
>garage, but when persons were present in the living quarters; and (2)
>failing to object to a jury instruction based on this same argument.
>Because we find there was no legal basis for the motion for judgment
>of acquittal or the objection to the jury instruction, Wills’ trial
>counsel was not ineffective. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of
>the district court.
>
>I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
>
>Around 1 a.m., an Ankeny resident called the local police to report
>that a car alarm sounded in the resident’s neighborhood. The city
>dispatched a police officer to the location. Observing nothing
>unusual, the officer left the area, only to be stopped a couple of
>blocks later by a person who informed the officer he had witnessed
>someone running from the area of the car alarm. As the officer
>started driving back to the area of the car alarm, he noticed a person
>walking on the sidewalk. The officer asked the person, a minor, if he
>had noticed anybody running from the area. The minor answered that he
>had not. While the officer and another officer were speaking to the
>minor, another resident of the neighborhood arrived in her car and
>informed the officers that she had observed two people, one of whom
>was heavy set with a blinking light on his back pocket, walking in the
>area of her neighbor’s residence. She observed the heavier-set
>individual, later identified as Wills, enter her neighbor’s attached
>garage through an unlocked service door. She further observed a
>smaller individual standing by a van parked in the neighbor’s
>driveway.
>
>The officers eventually let the minor leave even though they found a
>large amount of coins, a flashlight, and an electronic pocket
>organizer in his pockets. After releasing the minor, the police
>officers drove to the residence where the neighbor observed the two
>suspicious people and woke the owner. The owner, his wife, and two
>daughters were in the residence sleeping at the time. After a search
>of his vehicles, the owner discovered change and an electronic pocket
>organizer were missing from the vehicles. The owner’s daughter
>reported a diamond ring and some change were missing from her
>vehicle. The officers then contacted the minor’s parents, who
>informed the officers the minor was with Wills. After the officers
>questioned the minor again, he admitted his involvement in the theft
>and implicated Wills in the burglary. Although Wills denied
>involvement in the burglary, the officers arrested him.
>
>The State filed a trial information charging Wills with second-degree
>burglary. The State later amended the information to include two
>additional charges of burglary in the third degree and using a
>juvenile to commit an indictable offense.
>
>The jury returned a verdict finding Wills guilty of the crimes of
>burglary in the second degree, burglary in the third degree, and using
>a juvenile to commit an indictable offense. Wills appeals his
>conviction for second-degree burglary claiming ineffective assistance
>of counsel.
>
>II. Scope of Review.
>
>Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel are derived from the Sixth
>Amendment of the United States Constitution. Strickland v.
>Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-86, 104 S. Ct. 2052, 2063-64, 80 L. Ed.
>2d 674, 691-93 (1984). Our review for a claim involving violations of
>the Constitution is de novo. State v. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d 95, 100
>(Iowa 2004). We normally preserve ineffective-assistance-of-counsel
>claims for postconviction relief actions. State v. Carter, 602 N.W.2d
>818, 820 (Iowa 1999). However, we will address such claims on direct
>appeal when the record is sufficient to permit a ruling. State v.
>Artzer, 609 N.W.2d 526, 531 (Iowa 2000). The appellate record in the
>present case is sufficient to allow us to address Wills’ ineffective-
>assistance-of-counsel claims on direct appeal.
>
>In order for a defendant to succeed on a claim of ineffective
>assistance of counsel, the defendant must prove: (1) counsel failed
>to perform an essential duty and (2) prejudice resulted. Id.
>Prejudice results when “there is a reasonable probability that, but
>for the counsel’s unprofessional errors, the result of the proceeding
>would have been different.” State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 378
>(Iowa 1998) (quoting Strickland, 466 U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068,
>80 L. Ed. 2d at 698). Wills’ arguments also raise issues of statutory
>interpretation, which we review for correction of errors at law.
>State v. Wolford Corp., 689 N.W.2d 471, 473 (Iowa 2004).
>
>III. Analysis.
>
>To find Wills guilty of burglary in the second degree, the State had
>to prove Wills perpetrated a burglary “in or upon an occupied
>structure in which one or more persons are present . . . .” Iowa Code
>§ 713.5(2) (2003) (emphasis added).
>
>In this appeal, Wills first contends his trial counsel was ineffective
>for failing to move for a judgment of acquittal on the basis there was
>insufficient evidence to support a finding that at the time Wills
>entered the garage, there were persons present in or upon the occupied
>structure. Wills concedes the garage was an occupied structure, but
>argues the living quarters and the attached garage are separate and
>independent occupied structures; therefore, the jury could not have
>found there were people present in the attached garage at the time of
>the burglary.
>
>The Code defines an “occupied structure” as:
>
>[A]ny building, structure, appurtenances to buildings and structures,
>land, water or air vehicle, or similar place adapted for overnight
>accommodation of persons, or occupied by persons for the purpose of
>carrying on business or other activity therein, or for the storage or
>safekeeping of anything of value. Such a structure is an “occupied
>structure” whether or not a person is actually present.
>
>Id. § 702.12.
>
>Wills relies on State v. Smothers, 590 N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 1999), to
>argue the garage and the living quarters are separate and independent
>occupied structures. In Smothers, two separate and distinct
>businesses connected by interior fire doors were operated in the same
>structure. 590 N.W.2d at 723. We held the defendant committed two
>burglaries by entering each business because “[t]he facility’s
>construction history and physical make-up demonstrate that the
>portions are independent working units which constitute ‘[a]
>combination of materials to form a construction for occupancy [or]
>use.’” Id. Smothers is not at odds with the present case because the
>living quarters and the garage are not separate or independent units
>of the residence.
>
>Our review of the record reveals the garage in question was a three-
>car attached garage separated from the living quarters by a door. The
>same roof covered the garage as the rest of the residence. The living
>quarters surrounded the garage on two sides. It was structurally no
>different from any other room in the residence.
>
>The garage was a functional part of the residence. On the night of
>the incident, the door was unlocked. The owner of the residence used
>two stalls in the garage to park the family vehicles. The owner used
>the third stall for his motorcycle. As such, the garage and the
>living quarters are a single “structure” or “building” functioning as
>an integral part of the family residence. Thus, the residence
>including the garage is a single “occupied structure” under section
>702.12. See, e.g., People v. Ingram, 48 Cal. Rptr. 2d 256 (Ct. App.
>1995) (holding defendant’s entry into an attached garage constituted
>first-degree burglary because the garage was attached to the house;
>therefore, burglary of the garage was burglary of an inhabited
>dwelling house); People v. Cunningham, 637 N.E.2d 1247, 1252 (Ill.
>App. Ct. 1994) (holding “ordinarily an attached garage is a ‘dwelling’
>because it is part of the structure in which the owner or occupant
>lives”); State v. Lara, 587 P.2d 52, 53 (N.M. Ct. App. 1978) (holding
>“burglary of the [attached] garage was burglary of the dwelling house
>because the garage was a part of the structure used as living
>quarters”); People v. Green, 141 A.D.2d 760, 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988)
>(holding “[s]ince the garage in the present case was structurally part
>of a building which was used for overnight lodging of various persons,
>it must be considered as part of a dwelling”); White v. State, 630 S.W.
>2d 340, 342 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982) (holding an attached garage under the
>same roof as the home would be considered a habitation within the
>purview of the penal code because the garage is a structure
>appurtenant to and connected to the house); State v. Murbach, 843 P.2d
>551, 553 (Wash. Ct. App 1993) (holding the definition of a dwelling
>under Washington’s burglary statute included an attached garage).
>
>Had Wills’ trial counsel moved for a judgment of acquittal on the
>basis there was insufficient evidence to support a finding that at the
>time Wills entered the garage there were no persons present in or upon
>the occupied structure, it would have been overruled by the court
>because the owner and his family were present in the residence at the
>time of the burglary.
>
>Wills also claims his counsel was ineffective for failing to object to
>the jury instruction used by the district court on the same ground;
>that the living quarters were a separate and independent occupied
>structure from the attached garage. The instruction as given stated:
>
>The State must prove all of the following elements of Burglary in the
>Second Degree as to Count I:
>
>1. On or about the 12th day of August, 2003, the defendant or someone
>he aided and abetted broke into or entered the residence at . . . .
>
>2. The residence at . . . was an occupied structure as defined in
>Instruction No. 29.
>
>3. The defendant or the person he aided and abetted did not have
>permission or authority to break into the residence at . . . .
>
>4. The defendant or the person he aided and abetted did so with the
>specific intent to commit a theft therein.
>
>5. During the incident persons were present in or upon the occupied
>structure.
>
>If the State has proved all of the elements, the defendant is guilty
>of Burglary in the Second Degree. If the State has failed to prove
>any of the elements, the defendant is not guilty of Burglary in the
>Second Degree and you will then consider the charge of Attempted
>Burglary in the Second Degree explained in Instruction No. 21.
>
>(Emphasis added.)
>
>Wills’ claim is without merit. As we have discussed, the residence is
>the one and only “occupied structure” under the facts of this case.
>Had Wills’ trial counsel made this objection to the instruction, it
>would have been overruled.
>
>Therefore, Wills’ trial counsel is not ineffective for failing to move
>for a judgment of acquittal or objecting to the instruction because
>there was no legal basis for the motion or objection. See State v.
>Hochmuth, 585 N.W.2d 234, 238 (Iowa 1998) (holding trial counsel was
>not ineffective for failing to raise an issue that has no merit).
>
>IV. Disposition.
>
>We affirm the judgment of the district court because Wills’ trial
>counsel was not ineffective for failing to raise meritless issues.
>
>AFFIRMED.
Kent Wills
>Is this really "a small sample," or are you lying and it's everything
>you could find?
I'm not the one who looked for it. As you already know, but will
NEVER admit, someone else did the leg work and made the information
about Greg's contempt for criminal and civil law known.
Is there a specific reason you're deceptively implying I was the
one to find the information?
>In the course of your research, did you bother to look
>in the official records for the outcomes of any of these cases?
When, outside of your dishonesty, did I claim *I* did the
research?
Is there a specific reason you're deceptively implying I did the
research?
--
"If you call the police, I'll knock out all of your teeth, I'll
cripple you. I may go to prison for it, but when I get out,
I'll be able to walk,but you will still be a cripple."
--Greg Hanson, in a verbal threat to his girlfriend
Kent Wills
You've twice admitted that your mental illness is the result of
your alcoholism. I've never claimed, directly or through implication,
and you have even one DUI, let alone two or more.
What is the root cause of your psychological NEED to lie?
Greegor
KW > Projection is a very bad thing, Kenny-Bob.
Pony up a link to where Ken admitted to being an alcoholic.
Kent Wills
>> KRP > Wills claims that I have "admitted"
>> KRP > to alcoholism is just one more of
>> KRP > his mental aberrations Greg. He
>> KRP > has MANY. Larry DID make claims
>> KRP > that he never engaged me on the
>> KRP > Duke case over on ATC.
>> KRP > HE WAS LYING.
>> KRP >
>> KRP > Don't hold your breath waiting for
>> KRP > those LINKS Greg.
>>
>> Kent already whipped up the usual smoke and mirrors.
>
>A polite way of saying he's LYING HIS ASS OFF AGAIN! Which is why he's in
>my killfile.
Considering less than 12 hours after you said I was in it, you
replied directly to me, you already proved I'm not in it. Again.
--
"Maybe he's like me to attach some kiddie porn to aid his fantasies?"
Ken Pangborn expressing his fondness for child porn in Message-ID:
<RECUi.494$Q%3.238@trnddc04>
Kent Wills
>
>"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:2b05a85f-0cc6-48d5...@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>G > I would think that falsely asserting alcoholism
>G > on the part of an opponent would be rather
>G > a bad choice for an immigrant from Poland
>G > or Russia.
>
>KW > Lucky for me Kenny-Bob has admitted
>KW > to being an alcoholic on two occasions
>KW > of which I am aware. There may be
>KW > more, but I only know of two.
>
> I NEVER made any such "admission" Willis is a LIAR!
Liar.
>
>G> And YET you still haven't posted a LINK to that.
>
> He hasn't because his ONLY source on that is DAVID DIPSHIT MOORE.
No. You admitted to it on two separate occasions.
>It's
>simple, if I have that LONG LONG LONG LONG string of DUI's that one of the
>coven could find it.
When have I claimed, directly or through implication, that you
have even one DUI?
>Betty spent days pouring over Florida public records
>and couldn't find even ONE. Of course because there isn't one. I haven't
>been any kind of drinker since I got out of the Air Force over 40 years ago.
Then why did you admit to it?
>Even then I wasn't what you cold call a drinker. I HATED the taste of beer
>and hard liquor, and I still do. I can "tolerate" part of a good German beer
>with a German meal maybe once every 4 or 5 years. Most of the time Coca Cola
>is the hardest stuff I ever drink.
>
> Kunt knows this, but he and his pals (Moore and Sullivan) are compulsive
>liars.
>
>
If you're not an alcoholic, why, exactly, did you admit to being
one?
Kent Wills
>
>"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote another insane claim in
>message
>news:182456c7-3cf7-44c4...@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> > I also can't imagine anyone with at least an eighth grade education
>>> > reading pigborn's web pages and NOT catching on that ken pangborn is a
>>> > complete fraud and (extremely obvious) con artist, in fact ken ASPIRES
>>> > to be a complete fraud and con artist.
>>>
>>> > Even the picture on his web site... he has a look on his face like...
>>> > I hope you have money or a lot of credit cards and no brains, because
>>> > that's exactly the kind of person I need to sign my retainer agreement.
>>>
>>> Tell me something Sullivan - do you do ANYTHING in your days buy eat,
>>> shit and OBSESS about me?
>
>> Interesting that you don't dispute that's the look on your face.
>
> hat delusion
I so hate it when people without hats have the delusion they do.
:)
>is it that you have Sullivan that if I choose not to answer
>any of your INSANE claims that I am admitting to them? I don't care how
>many times you tell me - "I SO HORNY - - ME LOVE YOU LONG TIME!"
You're gay. We got it. Outside of explaining why you can't
maintain a marriage, no one cares.
>I'm NOT
>interested Sullivan.
Yet you consistently make it appear as if you are.
>Kent Wills could use a date, however.
>
Lin frowns on my dating other women. I have no interest in men,
which clearly bugs you to no end, so even if I were of a mind to
cheat, it wouldn't be with you or any other male.
"And you RULE OUT that it could be MOORE my biggest
fan and GAY lover."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-Team, LYING
and claiming David Moore is his gay lover. Message-ID:
<_MlOj.598$pH4.7@trnddc06>
Anonymous Remailer
From: Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.true-crime,alt.support.child-protective-services,soc.men
Subject: Re: KENNY THE DA - KENNY THE LIAR
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2008 17:41:29 -0700 (PDT)
Organization: http://groups.google.com
Lines: 34
Message-ID:
<f1438013-87b1-470a...@j22g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
On Jul 3, 5:40=A0pm, Nomen Nescio <nob...@dizum.com> wrote:
> From: " krp" Ken Pangborn, the nutter<krp24...@verizon.net>
> Newsgroups:
> soc.men,alt.dads-rights.unmoderated,alt.support.child-protective-services=
,a=ADlt.true-crime
> Subject: KENNY THE DA - KENNY THE LIAR
>
> =A0 =A0 Larry appeared in these groups and we sparred a little. I chided =
him
> about our "debates" over on alt.true-crime about the Duke Lacrosse case.
> Larry denied he did that. As an expedient I allowed it to pass.
DM > Kenny you don't "allow" anything. =A0You
DM > are the most disrespected man on earth.
DM >=A0This includes Saddam Hussein, George
DM > Bush, Bert Roling, Adolph Hitler, Goebles,
DM > Joan Rivers, Newt Gingrich, Michael
DM > Crook, Robert Soloway, Khalid Shaikh
DM > Mohammed, Osama Bin Laden,Michael
DM > Jackson, Scott Peterson, Rasputin,
DM > Crippen, Tim McVeigh, Kevin Baldwin,
DM > the dude who killed Jon Benet Ramsey
DM > and Barry Manilow. There isn't a single
DM > person on earth, including your wife
DM > and kids who gives a fuck about what
DM > you think, feel or say, so your
DM > contention that you "allowed" anything
DM > to pass is bullshit. =A0YOU are bullshit.
DM > You are pure shit.
There there! Let it all out Dave!
I am not Moore. I have never met Moore, never written to nor received
mail/email from Moore. I have never had any contact whatsoever with
Moore.
Tell us how you REALLY feel! LOL
I am not the only person who has this opinion of Ken Pangborn. He is a
liar and a thief and a fraud who abused his daughter. His own children
hate him.
How's the plea bargain going, by the way, Dave?
Funny you should bring that up, Greeeeeegie. The case that you and
Pangborn repeatedly posted reference to on this group was that of a
David Moore who is different from the one who posts here. Ken, your
dishonest fuck friend, knows that the charges didn't stick against the
dude you were posting about. He has known it for weeks, but he didn't
tell you. Look it up, asshole, and feel as foolish as you have shown
yourself to be.
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:5b9143ac-08ff-4b14...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>> Larry appeared in these groups and we sparred a little. I chided him
>> about our "debates" over on alt.true-crime about the Duke Lacrosse case.
>> Larry denied he did that. As an expedient I allowed it to pass.
>
> The real truth is, piggy, you asked Larry if he was in a flame war
> with you over the Duke case... and Larry said "no."
>
> And he said "no" because his messages were calm and on topic,
> obviously he wasn't in a flame war with anyone.
BULLSHIT Danny he said he NEVER engaged in ANY discussion with me on the
subject at all. IN FACT he claimed that he had "NEVER POSTED IN ALT TRUE
CRIME). HE LIED!
krp
KRP > Don't hold your breath waiting for those LINKS Greg.
KW > Projection is a very bad thing, Kenny-Bob.
G> Pony up a link to where Ken admitted to being an alcoholic.
Gee am I glad I don't have to read Wills' INSANE ranting any more. See IF
you can get him to document even ONE DUI!!!!
krp
"Anonymous Remailer" <mixm...@gpftor3.privacyfoundation.de> wrote more
bullshit in message
news:8df83fc06f151d00...@gpftor3.privacyfoundation.de...
He says stomping his feet like a 3 year old. Suuuuuuuuuurrre you're not
Davey. EVERYONE believes you too!
> Tell us how you REALLY feel! LOL
> I am not the only person who has this opinion of Ken Pangborn. He is a
> liar and a thief and a fraud who abused his daughter. His own children
> hate him.
Davey I agree you are not alone, LOTS of feminazis hate me too, HOWEVER
my children do NOT hate me and I did NOT abuse my daughter.
>> How's the plea bargain going, by the way, Dave?
> Funny you should bring that up, Greeeeeegie. The case that you and
> Pangborn repeatedly posted reference to on this group was that of a
> David Moore who is different from the one who posts here. Ken, your
> dishonest fuck friend, knows that the charges didn't stick against the
> dude you were posting about. He has known it for weeks, but he didn't
> tell you. Look it up, asshole, and feel as foolish as you have shown
> yourself to be.
YEAH RIGHT DAVEY. Moore Calumet City smokescreen
Kent Wills
When have I claimed you have even one DUI?
Hint: I haven't.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>KRP > Don't hold your breath waiting for those LINKS Greg.
>
>KW > Projection is a very bad thing, Kenny-Bob.
>
>Pony up a link to where Ken admitted to being an alcoholic.
Pony up a link to the picture of David dressed as a Nazi and I'll
post one of the links of Kenny-Bob admitting to being an alcoholic.
Kent Wills
>
>"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:5b9143ac-08ff-4b14...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> Larry appeared in these groups and we sparred a little. I chided him
>>> about our "debates" over on alt.true-crime about the Duke Lacrosse case.
>>> Larry denied he did that. As an expedient I allowed it to pass.
>>
>> The real truth is, piggy, you asked Larry if he was in a flame war
>> with you over the Duke case... and Larry said "no."
>>
>> And he said "no" because his messages were calm and on topic,
>> obviously he wasn't in a flame war with anyone.
>
> BULLSHIT Danny he said he NEVER engaged in ANY discussion with me on the
>subject at all.
Liar. He stated he never engaged in any flame war with you. You
posted the proof that he was telling the truth.
>IN FACT he claimed that he had "NEVER POSTED IN ALT TRUE
>CRIME). HE LIED!
>
Lie all your mental illness demands, but the truth will remain
that Larry stated he may have cross-posted to ATC. He asked you to
post the MID for just one post so that he could know for certain.
How does your mental illness rationalize his stating it's possible
he cross-posted to ATC with your LIE that he stated he never did?
"3 year old GIRL Kunt."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-Team,
commenting on a three-year-old girl's vagina.
Message-ID: <78RZj.7110$3j.6866@trnddc05>
tjab
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>On 3 Jul 2008 12:14:58 -0400, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
>
>>Is this really "a small sample," or are you lying and it's everything
>>you could find?
>
> I'm not the one who looked for it. As you already know, but will
>NEVER admit, someone else did the leg work and made the information
>about Greg's contempt for criminal and civil law known.
So what's the basis for your claim that it's a "small sample?"
> Is there a specific reason you're deceptively implying I was the
>one to find the information?
How about the fact that you just posted it without crediting
"someone else" for the research?
[...]
Non scrivetemi
Newsgroups:
alt.true-crime,alt.support.child-protective-services,soc.men,misc.legal
Subject: Re: THE GREAT BIG FAT KEN PANGBORN - THE GREAT BIG FAT
MENTALLY ILLPRETENDER
Date: Fri, 04 Jul 2008 11:23:22 -0500
Organization: The Kult of Kane
Lines: 37
Message-ID: <pjjs64drpsk43nc36...@4ax.com>
References: <6Cpak.245$Ae3.155@trnddc05>
<c70964e08fa11b12...@dizum.com>
<5b9143ac-08ff-4b14...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>
<Wiqbk.564$Ae3.50@trnddc05>
Reply-To: compu...@gmail.com
On Fri, 04 Jul 2008 14:18:30 GMT, Mentally Ill Alcoholic Ken Pangborn
wrote: " krp" <krp24...@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>"Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>news:5b9143ac-08ff-4b14...@p25g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
>>> Larry appeared in these groups and we sparred a little. I chided him
>>> about our "debates" over on alt.true-crime about the Duke Lacrosse case.
>>> Larry denied he did that. As an expedient I allowed it to pass.
>>
The real truth is, piggy, you asked Larry if he was in a flame war
with you over the Duke case... and Larry said "no."
>>
And he said "no" because his messages were calm and on topic,
obviously he wasn't in a flame war with anyone.
>
> BULLSHIT Danny he said he NEVER engaged in ANY discussion with me
on the subject at all.
Liar. He stated he never engaged in any flame war with you. You
posted the proof that he was telling the truth.
>IN FACT he claimed that he had "NEVER POSTED IN ALT TRUE
>CRIME). HE LIED!
>
Lie all your mental illness demands, but the truth will remain
that Larry stated he may have cross-posted to ATC. He asked you to
post the MID for just one post so that he could know for certain.
How does your mental illness rationalize his stating it's possible
he cross-posted to ATC with your LIE that he stated he never did?
Ken Pangborn is mentally ill. He has been mentally ill his entire life
according to his second wife and youngest daughter. He cannot tell
fantasy from reality and he cannot tell truth from lies. He doesn't
have any friends and his children all hate him. Only one of his
daughters will speak to him and only rarely to prevent his harassment of
her and her children.
Kent Wills
>In article <8b4r64hq8glcujsvj...@4ax.com>,
>Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>On 3 Jul 2008 12:14:58 -0400, tj...@wam.umd.edu (tjab) wrote:
>>
>>>Is this really "a small sample," or are you lying and it's everything
>>>you could find?
>>
>> I'm not the one who looked for it. As you already know, but will
>>NEVER admit, someone else did the leg work and made the information
>>about Greg's contempt for criminal and civil law known.
>
>So what's the basis for your claim that it's a "small sample?"
Having seen the other items. Duh.
It's not necessary to post every criminal and civil law GregWhore
has violated. The sample I and others, post is enough to show that
GregWhore thinks laws do not apply to him.
Also, other posts from GregWhore show that when he's done
something wrong, it's ALWAYS someone else's fault.
>
>> Is there a specific reason you're deceptively implying I was the
>>one to find the information?
>
>How about the fact that you just posted it without crediting
>"someone else" for the research?
>
You are the one who deceptively implied *I* did the research.
It's been discussed that others did it a few times.
And you were a part of at least one thread in which it was
discussed. Care to explain why you dishonestly act as if you didn't
already know?
Didn't think so.
Once again you lose. You can't win. You should try going up
against someone closer to your level. I think there are groups
intended for children. You *might* be able to beat one or two of the
regulars there. Might.
>[...]
>
>
What is the reason for your making it look as if you snipped
something in a place where you did not?
What you snipped appeared BEFORE the part you quoted. The full
quote of the paragraph is,
"When, outside of your dishonesty, did I claim *I* did the
research?
"Is there a specific reason you're deceptively implying I did the
research?"
You snipped the first sentence (but gave no indication you did).
Since nothing but my sig appeared after the sentence you did quote
(and one doesn't need to indicate the snipped the sig since most
readers do it automatically), you had no reason to lie and indicate
you snipped anything.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>