Moe the Wiccan on Human Sacrifice
Greegor
Maureen McAllister > "out getting laid" when
Maureen McAllister > I am well satisfied at
Maureen McAllister > home with my BF.
Is he Wiccan also?
Is that him in those disgusting piles of poop photos of you?
Does he know about Kent?
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
Greegor
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Maureen McAllister > I have no need to go
>Maureen McAllister > "out getting laid" when
>Maureen McAllister > I am well satisfied at
>Maureen McAllister > home with my BF.
>
>Is he Wiccan also?
>
>Is that him in those disgusting piles of poop photos of you?
>
>Does he know about Kent?
Why are you asking stalking questions of Moe?
Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
alt.friends?
http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated
following and harassing of another person" (Meloy, 1998).
-- Gregory Scott Hanson, inmate 1104135, wife and child abuser,
posting a definition of stalking so that he could accuse others of
stalking him.
Message-ID: <1150922197.4...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Information about inmate 1104135, Gregory Scott Hanson, wife and child
abuser:
Proof that inmate 1104135, Gregory Scott Hanson doesn't think he's
bound by criminal or civil law:
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
The rant inmate 1104135, Gregory Scott Hanson authored for Lisa
about how unfair it was for DHS to remove Lisa's daughter from Greg's
continued abuse:
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT OF LINN COUNTY
JUVENILE DIVISION
IN THE INTEREST OF NO. JVJV-12345
CHILD A. LASTNAME
DOB: 00-00-99 MOTION TO CLARIFY
MINOR CHILD MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
INAPPROPRIATE SERVICES
COMES NOW, Suzy Q. Mother, Pro Se, seeking relief from inappropriate
and inquisitive services.
The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) has IMPOSED a Service
Plan
onto us rather than allowing us ACTIVE participation in the FORMATION
of the Service Plan. We have complained about this for MOST of the
last 11 months, and have been laughed off by Judas of DHS, Deb of LSS
and ignored by Juvenile Court. Greg showed the quote from the US
DHHS Caseworker handbook to Deb, outside of our house, using the
trunk
of the car as a work surface. We have seen no sign that she passed
this information to Judas. Deb characterized this in writing as if
it was aberrant behavior and avoidance of personal issues. Judas has
been informed of this by way of SEVERAL documents, yet shown no sign
of truly understanding their significance. The Iowa DHS computer
blank FORM was apparently recently modified to make a clear statement
about this point, with boxed in text for emphasis, so it must be
important to SOMEBODY at DHS, perhaps due to a consent decree.
On January 99th, in court, I (Suzy Q. Mother) was asked by the judge
what MORE services would help, but got the "stone wall" treatment
regarding removal of inappropriate services. It clearly seemed to be
a "closed issue" with the Judge. Something is wrong with that. This
flies in the face of the concept of "Active Participation in the
Formation of Service Plan". Federal Case law says "opportunity
to object after formation is NOT a substitute for ACTIVE
participation
in the FORMATION of the Service Plan". This is a Federal
regulation and it's in the Iowa caseworker manual too.
Services DHS is attempting to IMPOSE upon our family turned out upon
further investigation to be contaminated beyond belief with putrid
INPUT. The words "fishing expedition" come to mind.
Domestic Violence Victim Counseling
Never mind that there has been no Domestic Violence in the 3 years
that Greg has been with us.
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Maureen McAllister > I have no need to go
>Maureen McAllister > "out getting laid" when
>Maureen McAllister > I am well satisfied at
>Maureen McAllister > home with my BF.
>
>Is he Wiccan also?
>
>Is that him in those disgusting piles of poop photos of you?
>
>Does he know about Kent?
Do you think posting the exact same message, three minutes
later, will gain you anything more than additional ridicule?
forevernitefan
> Maureen McAllister > I have no need to go
> Maureen McAllister > "out getting laid" when
> Maureen McAllister > I am well satisfied at
> Maureen McAllister > home with my BF.
>
> Is he Wiccan also?
Like me he considers abusers like you to be lowlifes. What his
religion is or is not is not applicable.
>
> Is that him in those disgusting piles of poop photos of you?
If you think reality-upchuck AKA prof Jonez is a reliable source
about me, you are stupider than tjab. Do you actually believe the
scat eating tinyurl that fecal obsessed racist posted claiming was me
was actually me? Are you THAtT stupid, Greg? You don't gain cred by
parroting the garbage he posts.
Waitaminute, you ARE that stupid......
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
forevernitefan
> On Sun, 30 Nov 2008 20:09:24 -0800 (PST), Greegor
>
> >Maureen McAllister > I have no need to go
> >Maureen McAllister > "out getting laid" when
> >Maureen McAllister > I am well satisfied at
> >Maureen McAllister > home with my BF.
>
> >Is he Wiccan also?
>
> >Is that him in those disgusting piles of poop photos of you?
>
> >Does he know about Kent?
>
> Do you think posting the exact same message, three minutes
> later, will gain you anything more than additional ridicule?
He doesn't have much to begin with. Him stalking me doesn't say much
for the quality of his real life. And his imitating reality-upchuck is
really pathetic,even for him. He obviously thought he had something on
me so he repeated posting the same old crap. His eagerness and
desperation made him spastic. And stupid, OC.
Gaggie, considering how your questions to me in the past were really
about, why should I tell you about my BF? Not that it matters because
you surely are no competition for him.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
Greegor
You "joined in" on a witch hunt/smear on me.
You're a Wiccan, fighting witch hunters.
You think reading True Crime books makes you an expert criminologist?
Despite listings on official Corrections, Court Docket and Appeal
sites
you assert the information on Kent B. Wills the Burglary Felon is
false.
Incredibly stupid or deliberately dishonest?
Are you or your BF Felons as well?
Do they know about your thing for Kent?
Kent Wills
wrote:
>Is your BF a boyfriend or a Bi-Female?
Since your mind operates at a fourth grade level (on your good
days), you probably don't understand that BF references either
boyfriend or best friend.
You should, however, be able to understand context. You asked
about her boyfriend (why did you ask so many stalking questions about
him?), the context shows she meant boyfriend.
Of course, you HATE context, since you can't present your proof
that you can't be honest, except by accident.
>
>You "joined in" on a witch hunt/smear on me.
When it's the truth, it's not a witch hunt nor a smear.
You have two convictions for beating your ex-wife.
By your own claims, you abused Lisa's little girl in various
ways. Unless you were lying, which is possible, you abused her.
By your own standards, you sexually assaulted the little girl as
well.
>You're a Wiccan, fighting witch hunters.
There is no witch hunt, Greg. No amount of your psychological
need to be a victim will alter this.
>
>You think reading True Crime books makes you an expert criminologist?
Has she claimed it does?
It gives her knowledge, but not expertise. Her expert status
exists solely within the confines of your numerous mental defects.
>
>Despite listings on official Corrections, Court Docket and Appeal
>sites
>you assert the information on Kent B. Wills the Burglary Felon is
>false.
Actually, she asked you to prove your claim. So far you've been
UNABLE to do so. But then, you've never been able to prove any claim
you've ever made.
It's rare that you offer anything that would support it.
>
>Incredibly stupid or deliberately dishonest?
How is asking you to prove a claim you've made either?
Be specific in your answer. Unless this was yet another of your
MANY deceptive rhetorical questions.
>Are you or your BF Felons as well?
Your abuse of Lisa's daughter was felonious. You're very lucky
the County Attorney didn't charge you.
Shall we refer to you as a felon from now on?
>Do they know about your thing for Kent?
>
What thing? That she's been able to expose you as the lying wife
beating, child molesting (by YOUR standards) scum you are doesn't mean
she has any interest in anyone on Usenet.
Are you having flash backs, Greg?
Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
alt.friends?
Is the reason because the members know about your sexual interest
in under-age girls?
If that is not the reason, please let the readers know the reason.
Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
alt.friends?
Kent Wills
wrote:
>On Mon, 1 Dec 2008 09:30:47 -0800 (PST), Greegor <Gree...@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>Is your BF a boyfriend or a Bi-Female?
>
> Since your mind operates at a fourth grade level (on your good
>days), you probably don't understand that BF references either
>boyfriend or best friend.
> You should, however, be able to understand context. You asked
>about her boyfriend (why did you ask so many stalking questions about
>him?), the context shows she meant boyfriend.
> Of course, you HATE context, since you can't present your proof
>that you can't be honest, except by accident.
>
Greg?
>>
>>You "joined in" on a witch hunt/smear on me.
>
> When it's the truth, it's not a witch hunt nor a smear.
> You have two convictions for beating your ex-wife.
> By your own claims, you abused Lisa's little girl in various
>ways. Unless you were lying, which is possible, you abused her.
> By your own standards, you sexually assaulted the little girl as
>well.
Greg?
>
>>You're a Wiccan, fighting witch hunters.
>
> There is no witch hunt, Greg. No amount of your psychological
>need to be a victim will alter this.
>
Greg?
>>
>>You think reading True Crime books makes you an expert criminologist?
>
> Has she claimed it does?
> It gives her knowledge, but not expertise. Her expert status
>exists solely within the confines of your numerous mental defects.
>
Greg?
>>
>>Despite listings on official Corrections, Court Docket and Appeal
>>sites
>>you assert the information on Kent B. Wills the Burglary Felon is
>>false.
>
> Actually, she asked you to prove your claim. So far you've been
>UNABLE to do so. But then, you've never been able to prove any claim
>you've ever made.
> It's rare that you offer anything that would support it.
>
Greg?
>>
>>Incredibly stupid or deliberately dishonest?
>
> How is asking you to prove a claim you've made either?
> Be specific in your answer. Unless this was yet another of your
>MANY deceptive rhetorical questions.
Greg?
>
>>Are you or your BF Felons as well?
>
> Your abuse of Lisa's daughter was felonious. You're very lucky
>the County Attorney didn't charge you.
> Shall we refer to you as a felon from now on?
Greg?
>
>>Do they know about your thing for Kent?
>>
>
> What thing? That she's been able to expose you as the lying wife
>beating, child molesting (by YOUR standards) scum you are doesn't mean
>she has any interest in anyone on Usenet.
> Are you having flash backs, Greg?
> Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
>alt.friends?
> Is the reason because the members know about your sexual interest
>in under-age girls?
> If that is not the reason, please let the readers know the reason.
> Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
>alt.friends?
>
Greg?
You've gone silent. Has the light of truth so blinded you?
forevernitefan
> Is your BF a boyfriend or a Bi-Female?
He's all male. Unlike you.
>
> You "joined in" on a witch hunt/smear on me.
> You're a Wiccan, fighting witch hunters.
So you are now claiming to be a "witch" victim of a "witch hunt"?
You aren't much on sticking to the truth, are you?
Greg, your own words and your damn legal offense history shows you to
be scum. " Witch hunts" by definition involve unfounded allegations.
Twist this all you want to portray yourself as the victim, YOU ARE NO
VICTIM. In fact, you disgusting sonofabich, YOU VICTIMIZE OTHERS.
Got that, shite-for-brains?
Are you going to blame the seven year old girl for " making" you
abuse her and be sexually interested in her? Are you going to blame
your ex-wife for creating her mental illness and making you " suffer"?
Do you honestly think I'm buying your " victim" act?
Let me tell you this again. I have no sympathy whatsoever for you.
None.Nada. I have far more sympathy for the children of impoverished
parents who hope for a simple toy, ANY toy for Christmas. You I have
no sympathy.
Take your little act and stuff it up your rear end.
>
> You think reading True Crime books makes you an expert criminologist?
I never SAID I was an expert. Delusional again, Greg? However in
reading so many true crime books and so forth including on criminal
profiling, I can sure as hell discern certain characteristics of scum
like you. Your " I'm the victim" act is only confirming what I see
overall about you. You make Kern Pangburn look moderate by comparison.
>
> Despite listings on official Corrections, Court Docket and Appeal
> sites
> you assert the information on Kent B. Wills the Burglary Felon is
> false.
>
Show mew scanned copies of the actual court records, Greg. We've been
through this before more than enough for even Tjab to understand. Your
words confirm Kent's allegation that you are incapable of telling the
truth about anything.
> Incredibly stupid or deliberately dishonest?
Talking about yourself?
> Are you or your BF Felons as well?
Nope. Most people are not felons. I don't even have a traffic ticket.
> Do they know about your thing for Kent?
" They" Who's " they"? As for my " thing" with Kent, whatever the
hell you are talking about, had you been observant, you would know
that when Kent says something I disagree with or disapprove of, I
OPENLY say so.
Greegor
Moe > He's all male. Unlike you.
Ouch! Ya hurt me Moe! Ya hurt me I tellz ya!
G > You "joined in" on a witch hunt/smear on me.
G > You're a Wiccan, fighting witch hunters.
Moe > So you are now claiming to be a
Moe > "witch" victim of a "witch hunt"?
Moe > You aren't much on sticking to the truth, are you?
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
Moe > Greg, your own words and your damn legal
Moe > offense history shows you to be scum.
Moe > " Witch hunts" by definition involve unfounded
Moe > allegations.
Moe > Twist this all you want to portray yourself as
Moe > the victim, YOU ARE NO VICTIM. In fact,
Moe > you disgusting sonofabich,
Moe > YOU VICTIMIZE OTHERS.
Moe >
Moe > Got that, shite-for-brains?
Moe >
Moe > Are you going to blame the seven year old
Moe > girl for " making" you abuse her and be
Moe > sexually interested in her? Are you going to
Moe > blame your ex-wife for creating her mental
Moe > illness and making you " suffer"?
Moe >
Moe > Do you honestly think I'm buying your " victim" act?
Moe >
Moe > Let me tell you this again. I have no sympathy
Moe > whatsoever for you. None.Nada. I have far more
Moe > sympathy for the children of impoverished
Moe > parents who hope for a simple toy, ANY toy
Moe > for Christmas. You I have no sympathy.
Moe >
Moe > Take your little act and stuff it up your rear end.
G > You think reading True Crime books
G > makes you an expert criminologist?
Moe > I never SAID I was an expert. Delusional again,
Moe > Greg? However in reading so many true crime
Moe > books and so forth including on criminal
Moe > profiling, I can sure as hell discern certain
Moe > characteristics of scum like you. Your
Moe > " I'm the victim" act is only confirming what
Moe > I see overall about you. You make Kern
Moe > Pangburn look moderate by comparison.
G > Despite listings on official Corrections, Court
G > Docket and Appeal sites you assert the
G > information on Kent B. Wills the Burglary
G > Felon is false.
Moe > Show mew scanned copies of the actual
Moe > court records, Greg.
Actually that would be LESS valid proof than
simply checking the offical court web sites, etc.
You've never explained how three official
government web sites, including Iowa
Supreme Court could have been faked.
Moe > We've been through this before more
Moe > than enough for even Tjab to understand.
Moe > Your words confirm Kent's allegation
Moe > that you are incapable of telling the
Moe > truth about anything.
G > Incredibly stupid or deliberately dishonest?
Moe > Talking about yourself?
Genius comeback! LOL
G > Are you or your BF Felons as well?
Moe > Nope. Most people are not felons.
Moe > I don't even have a traffic ticket.
Maybe that's part of your problem!
G > Do they know about your thing for Kent?
Moe > " They" Who's " they"?
Flunk English 101? Oh wait! Community College right?
Moe > As for my " thing" with Kent, whatever the
Moe > hell you are talking about, had you been
Moe > observant, you would know that when Kent
Moe > says something I disagree with or
Moe > disapprove of, I OPENLY say so.
Even your own statement implies that
your default position is agreement.
Your insane belief that three official government
web sites all hold fraudulent information on Kent
would seem to indicate how far gone you are.
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
TNKev
Greegor wrote:
> Your insane belief that three official government
> web sites all hold fraudulent information on Kent
> would seem to indicate how far gone you are.
>
your ignorance of information gathering devices on the internet
indicates how ignorant you are.
not to mention over a year of badgering Kent and getting absolutely
nowhere, the same conversations over and over again. you won't, you
can't, you are incapable of winning.......give it up.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>G > Is your BF a boyfriend or a Bi-Female?
>
>Moe > He's all male. Unlike you.
>
>Ouch! Ya hurt me Moe! Ya hurt me I tellz ya!
It's been said that truth hurts.
>
>G > You "joined in" on a witch hunt/smear on me.
>G > You're a Wiccan, fighting witch hunters.
>
>Moe > So you are now claiming to be a
>Moe > "witch" victim of a "witch hunt"?
>
>Moe > You aren't much on sticking to the truth, are you?
>
>http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
>
So that's a no then.
Why are you so unable to be honest about anything at any time?
What is the *specific* mental defect you have that makes it so
difficult for you?
[...]
>
>G > You think reading True Crime books
>G > makes you an expert criminologist?
>
>Moe > I never SAID I was an expert. Delusional again,
>Moe > Greg? However in reading so many true crime
>Moe > books and so forth including on criminal
>Moe > profiling, I can sure as hell discern certain
>Moe > characteristics of scum like you. Your
>Moe > " I'm the victim" act is only confirming what
>Moe > I see overall about you. You make Kern
>Moe > Pangburn look moderate by comparison.
>
>G > Despite listings on official Corrections, Court
>G > Docket and Appeal sites you assert the
>G > information on Kent B. Wills the Burglary
>G > Felon is false.
>
>Moe > Show mew scanned copies of the actual
>Moe > court records, Greg.
>
>Actually that would be LESS valid proof than
>simply checking the offical court web sites, etc.
Explain how actual physical records would be less valid.
>
>You've never explained how three official
>government web sites, including Iowa
>Supreme Court could have been faked.
Avoidance noted.
Now that you have that out of the way, either provide the proof
Moe requested or admit you've exposed your pathological lying once
again.
>
>Moe > We've been through this before more
>Moe > than enough for even Tjab to understand.
>Moe > Your words confirm Kent's allegation
>Moe > that you are incapable of telling the
>Moe > truth about anything.
>
>G > Incredibly stupid or deliberately dishonest?
>
>Moe > Talking about yourself?
>
>Genius comeback! LOL
One doesn't need to be a genius to see you projecting your faults
onto others. A high IQ isn't a mandate for proving you can't be
honest, except by accident.
>
>G > Are you or your BF Felons as well?
>
>Moe > Nope. Most people are not felons.
>Moe > I don't even have a traffic ticket.
>
>Maybe that's part of your problem!
Moe's not having a criminal record is a part of some phantom
problem of your mind's creation?
Please explain.
>
>G > Do they know about your thing for Kent?
>
>Moe > " They" Who's " they"?
>
>Flunk English 101? Oh wait! Community College right?
Nice avoidance.
Now answer the question Moe asked. Unless an honest answer is
impossible for you.
Oh wait. You already proved that numerous times.
>
>Moe > As for my " thing" with Kent, whatever the
>Moe > hell you are talking about, had you been
>Moe > observant, you would know that when Kent
>Moe > says something I disagree with or
>Moe > disapprove of, I OPENLY say so.
>
>Even your own statement implies that
>your default position is agreement.
>
Moe and I tend to focus on those items where we agree. After so
many years of Usenet interaction, we've come to find that in most, but
not all, areas of disagreement, neither of us will change the position
of the other.
This means to try will end up being a waste of time for the both
of us.
You wouldn't understand, since personal interaction doesn't
really develop until the mind gets to around the seventh or eighth
grade.
>Your insane belief that three official government
>web sites all hold fraudulent information on Kent
>would seem to indicate how far gone you are.
Where is the proof, Greg?
Projecting your mental defects onto Moe, or anyone else, isn't
going to help you any. Quite the opposite, actually. The more you
insist on trying to make it look as if others who expose you for the
predator scum you've been proved to be are somehow unbalanced, when
you are the one with the mental problems (your own posts prove this),
the more people see you for what you are.
Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
alt.friends?
Do you still hold the delusion that insomnia and claustrophobia
are the same thing?
Why do you believe you are exempt from any and all laws, as
proved by your criminal and civil history?
>
>http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
Kent Wills
>
>
>Greegor wrote:
>
>> Your insane belief that three official government
>> web sites all hold fraudulent information on Kent
>> would seem to indicate how far gone you are.
>>
>
>your ignorance of information gathering devices on the internet
>indicates how ignorant you are.
>
>not to mention over a year of badgering Kent and getting absolutely
>nowhere,
I have the unique ability to attract the most obsessive of
personalities.
I can even leave, as I did with ascps, and the obsessives will
follow me. Greg is a perfect example of this.
He whined about my presence in ascps. Since I was offering
NOTHING that was on-topic, I left. As soon as Greg noticed I was
gone, he sought me out in other groups.
He believes this is mentally sound people behave, further proving
that he's not mentally sound.
>the same conversations over and over again. you won't, you
>can't, you are incapable of winning.......give it up.
Few people are able to take defeat from the jaws of victory as
completely as Greg.
A few times I've (metaphorically speaking) handed him a means by
which to get me. He's managed to screw up each time.
I should have known in advance he would screw it up. Each time
did require that Greg be honest about what I presented, and that's not
possible for Greg. Not intentionally.
Part of it is due to his mental retardation. He really does
operate at around a fourth grade level.
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott Hanson, inmate 1104135, wife and child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 1, 11:30 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is your BF a boyfriend or a Bi-Female?
>
> He's all male. Unlike you.
>
>>
>> You "joined in" on a witch hunt/smear on me.
>> You're a Wiccan, fighting witch hunters.
>
> So you are now claiming to be a "witch" victim of a "witch hunt"?
In the rant Greg authored for Lisa (the very poor writing makes
it clear Greg wrote it), mention is made of a psychologist who, after
interviewing Greg, came to the conclusion that Greg has a need to be
seen as a victim.
I noticed this early on in Greg's writings, and commented on it.
It was great to read how "DrDHSisgoodforyou" reached the same
conclusion. And the doctor had proper training and experience behind
the comment.
>
> You aren't much on sticking to the truth, are you?
>
Greg is UNABLE to be honest, except by accident.
> Greg, your own words and your damn legal offense history shows you to
>be scum. " Witch hunts" by definition involve unfounded allegations.
>Twist this all you want to portray yourself as the victim, YOU ARE NO
>VICTIM. In fact, you disgusting sonofabich, YOU VICTIMIZE OTHERS.
He *tries* to victimize others. With the weak and young, he's
sometimes able.
Look to his abuse of his ex-wife and Lisa's daughter for the
proof.
>
> Got that, shite-for-brains?
>
> Are you going to blame the seven year old girl for " making" you
>abuse her and be sexually interested in her?
Did you notice how when he tried to stalk me, he state it was *my*
fault? In his mind, my exposing his frequent lies FORCED him to try
and stalk me.
Consistent with his predator mind, everything is his victim's
fault. Although given the degree of failure he experienced in
stalking me, I don't think I could claim myself a victim of his mental
defects.
It's probably my fault that he learned Kent Bradley Wills, from
Ankeny, didn't exist until 1993.
My bad :)
>Are you going to blame
>your ex-wife for creating her mental illness and making you " suffer"?
According to Greg, his assaulting her was 100% her fault. But
then, that's the claim of predators like Greg.
>
> Do you honestly think I'm buying your " victim" act?
But everyone is supposed to see Greg as a victim and say, "Poor
Greg. The whole world is out to get you."
>
> Let me tell you this again. I have no sympathy whatsoever for you.
>None.Nada. I have far more sympathy for the children of impoverished
>parents who hope for a simple toy, ANY toy for Christmas. You I have
>no sympathy.
More important to Greg is getting people to believe his lie that
he was railroaded by DHS. That he did nothing wrong.
Of course, when ever anyone checks his claims, they find out DHS
was in the right with him. His abuse of Lisa's daughter was so great
that sending the girl to live with a woman with a questionable state
of mental health was far better than allowing the girl to stay in
proximity to Greg.
In reality, Grandpa did most of the supervision. Greg refuses to
mention this since there was nothing wrong with Grandpa.
>
> Take your little act and stuff it up your rear end.
>
>>
>> You think reading True Crime books makes you an expert criminologist?
>
> I never SAID I was an expert. Delusional again, Greg?
One of Greg's favored tactics is to place an accusation in a
question.
You've never claimed any level of expertise. Greg knows this,
but since he MUST lie, he asked his question while inserting a
deceptive innuendo.
Anyone new to the matter may well think you had claimed expertise
in criminal matters because of your interest in true crime stories.
>However in
>reading so many true crime books and so forth including on criminal
>profiling, I can sure as hell discern certain characteristics of scum
>like you. Your " I'm the victim" act is only confirming what I see
>overall about you. You make Kern Pangburn look moderate by comparison.
Greg is one of the few who can make Pangborn look honest. Greg
can be honest by accident. Pangborn has to be forced into it.
>
>>
>> Despite listings on official Corrections, Court Docket and Appeal
>> sites
>> you assert the information on Kent B. Wills the Burglary Felon is
>> false.
>>
>
> Show mew scanned copies of the actual court records, Greg. We've been
>through this before more than enough for even Tjab to understand. Your
>words confirm Kent's allegation that you are incapable of telling the
>truth about anything.
Greg's past confirms that.
>
>
>> Incredibly stupid or deliberately dishonest?
>
> Talking about yourself?
Greg doesn't project as often as lie, but this is a case of
projection from Greg.
>
>> Are you or your BF Felons as well?
>
> Nope. Most people are not felons. I don't even have a traffic ticket.
>
I got a speeding ticket back in 1986 or 87.
I'd be amazed if it would show up on any background check.
>> Do they know about your thing for Kent?
>
> " They" Who's " they"?
Probably the voices in Greg's head. :)
>As for my " thing" with Kent, whatever the
>hell you are talking about, had you been observant, you would know
>that when Kent says something I disagree with or disapprove of, I
>OPENLY say so.
>
In a futile attempt to distract from the truth that Greg is a
predator of weak and/or underage females, he's brought forth something
he knows isn't true. It's another of his Gregory Scott Hanson tactic.
When the evidence is so great that he can't get away from it, he
tries distraction.
It doesn't work, of course. Few are so mind numbingly stupid as
to buy such a ploy.
--
"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
Greegor
you is more of a compliment?
Anybody who sees your lame deceptions and
mischaracterizations of others quickly recognize
that you ARE the guy who appealed your garage
burglary conviction on the grounds that an
attached garage is not part of a residence.
It's the same lame logic you use routinely online.
Andrew Usher
> I have the unique ability to attract the most obsessive of
> personalities.
No one is as obsessed as you, Kent!
Andrew Usher
Kent Wills
wrote:
>Kent, Do you realize that character assassination from
>you is more of a compliment?
>
You comment makes no sense in the context of the post to which you
are replying.
Further, you already posted this screed, and I countered it.
Are you really as mentally screwed up as you're presenting?
Serious question.
Why are you stalking and harassing the members of alt.friends?
Another serious question.
>Anybody who sees your lame deceptions and
Kent Wills
Name one time I've followed someone to groups I didn't read just
to continue to get their input. Greg's done that in regards to his
obsession with me.
When I left ascps, Greg's obsession with me was (and is) so
great, he started cross-posting to groups I currently post to (and
some I had ceased posting to over a year before).
And now you're feeding his delusion that his behavior is normal.
--
"Hail imp," shouted Vlad, the Imp Hailer.
richard
wrote:
>Kent, Do you realize that character assassination from
>you is more of a compliment?
>
>Anybody who sees your lame deceptions and
>mischaracterizations of others quickly recognize
>that you ARE the guy who appealed your garage
>burglary conviction on the grounds that an
>attached garage is not part of a residence.
Technically correct. As a garage is not normally where a person
resides. Which then falls under different building zone categories.
However, in the eyes of the law, it is the fact that a person not
properly entitled to remove items from that building, has, in fact,
committed a crime.
It would be treated the same as if a locked car on a public street was
broken into and items removed from it.
While there was no immediate threat of harm to persons inside the
actual residence, the laws of the state may see it as a "proximity"
case. That would be determined by the court.
>
>It's the same lame logic you use routinely online.
>
>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
And did you note the status?
Probation. On both counts.
BTW, happy birthday. Punk.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>Technically correct. As a garage is not normally where a person
>resides. Which then falls under different building zone categories.
That may be. However, contrary to Greg's constant claims, an
attached garage IS a part of the residence under Iowa law.
>However, in the eyes of the law, it is the fact that a person not
>properly entitled to remove items from that building, has, in fact,
>committed a crime.
>
>It would be treated the same as if a locked car on a public street was
>broken into and items removed from it.
Under Iowa law, it's different categories.
>
>While there was no immediate threat of harm to persons inside the
>actual residence, the laws of the state may see it as a "proximity"
>case. That would be determined by the court.
And/or state statute.
Greg's mind holds the delusion that an attached garage is not a
part of the residence. He may be using the same logic as you to
support this specific mental defect.
However, Iowa law doesn't agree with his delusion. Until such
time as the law is changed, it will remain a part of the residence
under Iowa law.
A bummer for Greg and his further proof that his mind is
seriously damaged, but that's the way it goes.
Greegor
> On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 16:27:42 -0800 (PST), Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Kent, Do you realize that character assassination from
> >you is more of a compliment?
>
> >Anybody who sees your lame deceptions and
> >mischaracterizations of others quickly recognize
> >that you ARE the guy who appealed your garage
> >burglary conviction on the grounds that an
> >attached garage is not part of a residence.
>
> Technically correct. As a garage is not normally where a person
> resides. Which then falls under different building zone categories.
> However, in the eyes of the law, it is the fact that a person not
> properly entitled to remove items from that building, has, in fact,
> committed a crime.
Actually it's spelled out in black letter law in Iowa that
robbing an attached garage is residential burglary.
No determination to be made by court.
If the appeal would have succeeded it would
have only changed the severity of punishment
not the fact of burglary or Felony status.
> It would be treated the same as if a locked car on a public street was
> broken into and items removed from it.
>
> While there was no immediate threat of harm to persons inside the
> actual residence, the laws of the state may see it as a "proximity"
> case. That would be determined by the court.
>
>
>
> >It's the same lame logic you use routinely online.
>
> >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
>
> And did you note the status?
> Probation. On both counts.
>
> BTW, happy birthday. Punk.
You mean from one of the other official sites, right?
Got any explanation of how Moe shrugs
off the 3 official web sites listing Kent?
forevernitefan
> On Wed, 3 Dec 2008 17:16:00 -0800 (PST), forevernitefan
>
> >On Dec 1, 11:30 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Is your BF a boyfriend or a Bi-Female?
>
> > He's all male. Unlike you.
>
> >> You "joined in" on a witch hunt/smear on me.
> >> You're a Wiccan, fighting witch hunters.
>
> > So you are now claiming to be a "witch" victim of a "witch hunt"?
>
> In the rant Greg authored for Lisa (the very poor writing makes
> it clear Greg wrote it), mention is made of a psychologist who, after
> interviewing Greg, came to the conclusion that Greg has a need to be
> seen as a victim.
Yeah his " poor me" act. His attempts to gather sympathy for what he
CHOSE to do is incredibly twisted. Aberrant behavior.
> I noticed this early on in Greg's writings, and commented on it.
> It was great to read how "DrDHSisgoodforyou" reached the same
> conclusion. And the doctor had proper training and experience behind
> the comment.
>
>
>
> > You aren't much on sticking to the truth, are you?
>
> Greg is UNABLE to be honest, except by accident.
He's not even honest about himself. Another sign of aberrant behavior.
>
> > Greg, your own words and your damn legal offense history shows you to
> >be scum. " Witch hunts" by definition involve unfounded allegations.
> >Twist this all you want to portray yourself as the victim, YOU ARE NO
> >VICTIM. In fact, you disgusting sonofabich, YOU VICTIMIZE OTHERS.
>
> He *tries* to victimize others. With the weak and young, he's
> sometimes able.
> Look to his abuse of his ex-wife and Lisa's daughter for the
> proof.
And apparently he's a wuss when faced with a stronger opponent.
>
>
>
> > Got that, shite-for-brains?
>
> > Are you going to blame the seven year old girl for " making" you
> >abuse her and be sexually interested in her?
>
> Did you notice how when he tried to stalk me, he state it was *my*
> fault? In his mind, my exposing his frequent lies FORCED him to try
> and stalk me.
Yeah I noticed that. It's an indication fo an abusive personality. "
You made me mad, you didn't keep dinner the way I like it so you
deserve being beaten". " You didn't satisfy me sexually when I demand
so I went elsewhere or " took" you as you are mine." That crap.
> Consistent with his predator mind, everything is his victim's
> fault. Although given the degree of failure he experienced in
> stalking me, I don't think I could claim myself a victim of his mental
> defects.
> It's probably my fault that he learned Kent Bradley Wills, from
> Ankeny, didn't exist until 1993.
> My bad :)
He's never going to admit that youtricked him a few times.
>
> >Are you going to blame
> >your ex-wife for creating her mental illness and making you " suffer"?
>
> According to Greg, his assaulting her was 100% her fault. But
> then, that's the claim of predators like Greg.
>
>
>
> > Do you honestly think I'm buying your " victim" act?
>
> But everyone is supposed to see Greg as a victim and say, "Poor
> Greg. The whole world is out to get you."
>
>
>
> > Let me tell you this again. I have no sympathy whatsoever for you.
> >None.Nada. I have far more sympathy for the children of impoverished
> >parents who hope for a simple toy, ANY toy for Christmas. You I have
> >no sympathy.
>
> More important to Greg is getting people to believe his lie that
> he was railroaded by DHS. That he did nothing wrong.
> Of course, when ever anyone checks his claims, they find out DHS
> was in the right with him. His abuse of Lisa's daughter was so great
> that sending the girl to live with a woman with a questionable state
> of mental health was far better than allowing the girl to stay in
> proximity to Greg.
> In reality, Grandpa did most of the supervision. Greg refuses to
> mention this since there was nothing wrong with Grandpa.
Didn't Grandpa create an Ann Coulter event on Greg? Must be hard to
have to consume only soft foods...
(( Shrugs)) The worst I got was a warning about a non-working
taillight. I never pushed my cars beyond the speed limit and the way
other people drive makes me always cautious about potential accidents.
>
> >> Do they know about your thing for Kent?
>
> > " They" Who's " they"?
>
> Probably the voices in Greg's head. :)
Maybe he's forming his own conspiracy theory about all the people who
are " out to get" him.
>
> >As for my " thing" with Kent, whatever the
> >hell you are talking about, had you been observant, you would know
> >that when Kent says something I disagree with or disapprove of, I
> >OPENLY say so.
>
> In a futile attempt to distract from the truth that Greg is a
> predator of weak and/or underage females, he's brought forth something
> he knows isn't true. It's another of his Gregory Scott Hanson tactic.
> When the evidence is so great that he can't get away from it, he
> tries distraction.
> It doesn't work, of course. Few are so mind numbingly stupid as
> to buy such a ploy.
>
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
> --
Dan Sullivan
> On Dec 4, 10:01 pm, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 16:27:42 -0800 (PST), Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > >Kent, Do you realize that character assassination from
> > >you is more of a compliment?
>
> > >Anybody who sees your lame deceptions and
> > >mischaracterizations of others quickly recognize
> > >that you ARE the guy who appealed your garage
> > >burglary conviction on the grounds that an
> > >attached garage is not part of a residence.
>
> > Technically correct. As a garage is not normally where a person
> > resides. Which then falls under different building zone categories.
> > However, in the eyes of the law, it is the fact that a person not
> > properly entitled to remove items from that building, has, in fact,
> > committed a crime.
>
> Actually it's spelled out in black letter law in Iowa that
> robbing an attached garage is residential burglary.
>
> No determination to be made by court.
Sounds like your voicing a LEGAL OPINION on the law, grag.
Practicing law without a license?
richard
>Sounds like ---->>> your<<<<---- voicing a LEGAL OPINION on the law, grag.
>
>Practicing law without a license?
"YOU ARE".
It is not illegal to pass information concerning what the law is.
Cops do it all day long.
Practicing without a license means you are taking compensation for the
information when not entitled to do so.
Kind of like taking things that don't belong to you.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>On Dec 4, 10:01 pm, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> On Thu, 4 Dec 2008 16:27:42 -0800 (PST), Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >Kent, Do you realize that character assassination from
>> >you is more of a compliment?
>>
>> >Anybody who sees your lame deceptions and
>> >mischaracterizations of others quickly recognize
>> >that you ARE the guy who appealed your garage
>> >burglary conviction on the grounds that an
>> >attached garage is not part of a residence.
>>
>> Technically correct. As a garage is not normally where a person
>> resides. Which then falls under different building zone categories.
>> However, in the eyes of the law, it is the fact that a person not
>> properly entitled to remove items from that building, has, in fact,
>> committed a crime.
>
>Actually it's spelled out in black letter law in Iowa that
>robbing an attached garage is residential burglary.
Yet there are countless posts where you claim it is not, then try
to project your delusion by lying and saying I made the claim.
>
>No determination to be made by court.
>
>If the appeal would have succeeded it would
>have only changed the severity of punishment
>not the fact of burglary or Felony status.
>
Did you file such an appeal? News to me.
[...]
>>
>> BTW, happy birthday. Punk.
>
>You mean from one of the other official sites, right?
It could be from your dishonestly claiming the birthday page
listed a name and birthday that you KNEW it did not.
Even after that lie had been exposed, your total inability to be
honest forced you to keep presenting it for a few months.
>
>Got any explanation of how Moe shrugs
>off the 3 official web sites listing Kent?
Got an explanation of how you're consistently able to post those
things that you KNOW are not true?
Why are you stalking members of alt.friends? You've never been
able to answer this question, except by flat out lying.
Is an *honest* answer impossible for you? Serious question.
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Kent Wills
<dsul...@optonline.net> wrote:
[...]
>> Actually it's spelled out in black letter law in Iowa that
>> robbing an attached garage is residential burglary.
>>
>> No determination to be made by court.
>
>Sounds like your voicing a LEGAL OPINION on the law, grag.
>
>Practicing law without a license?
Uh oh! Greg's only friend, Kenny-Bob Pangborn, won't like that
one bit!
--
"I am erudite [sic] but not Buckelyesque"
Gregory Scott Hanson, inmate 1104135, wife and child abuser
Jan 22, 2008
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[Snips for brevity]
>>
>> In the rant Greg authored for Lisa (the very poor writing makes
>> it clear Greg wrote it), mention is made of a psychologist who, after
>> interviewing Greg, came to the conclusion that Greg has a need to be
>> seen as a victim.
>
> Yeah his " poor me" act. His attempts to gather sympathy for what he
>CHOSE to do is incredibly twisted. Aberrant behavior.
>
100% consistent with a predator, as Greg has consistently proved
himself to be.
Greg is either a predator, or he's doing an Oscar worth
performance of one on-line. I don't think Greg is that good of an
actor.
[...]
>>
>>
>> > You aren't much on sticking to the truth, are you?
>>
>> Greg is UNABLE to be honest, except by accident.
>
>He's not even honest about himself. Another sign of aberrant behavior.
>
That's the real problem. Greg lies so often that if he ever is
able to make an honest comment, believing is nearly impossible.
He's yet to offer any evidence of the claims he's made. Well,
nothing that can be verified anyway.
One example is what I call the "Fabian Quote."
It's quite possible the person he credits did make the quote.
It's possible the quote was in the context presented. However, Greg
has yet to offer a cite for the full comment so that the quote can be
examined in context. It's possible the quote was in regards to a
different organization.
When I tried to find the full text, all I could find were k00k
pages that also failed to offer a means by which to verify the context
of the quote.
>>
>> > Greg, your own words and your damn legal offense history shows you to
>> >be scum. " Witch hunts" by definition involve unfounded allegations.
>> >Twist this all you want to portray yourself as the victim, YOU ARE NO
>> >VICTIM. In fact, you disgusting sonofabich, YOU VICTIMIZE OTHERS.
>>
>> He *tries* to victimize others. With the weak and young, he's
>> sometimes able.
>> Look to his abuse of his ex-wife and Lisa's daughter for the
>> proof.
>
> And apparently he's a wuss when faced with a stronger opponent.
>
It's at that point that his "I'm a victim of your persecution"
mind set takes over.
You represent the greatest threat to him. You are a strong
willed woman who doesn't take his crap. Since you won't "sit down,
shut up, and let the men folk talk," he has to claim you're engaged in
a "witch hunt" against him.
>>
>>
>>
>> > Got that, shite-for-brains?
>>
>> > Are you going to blame the seven year old girl for " making" you
>> >abuse her and be sexually interested in her?
>>
>> Did you notice how when he tried to stalk me, he state it was *my*
>> fault? In his mind, my exposing his frequent lies FORCED him to try
>> and stalk me.
>
> Yeah I noticed that. It's an indication fo an abusive personality.
And the predator mind Greg displays on-line.
>"You made me mad, you didn't keep dinner the way I like it so you
>deserve being beaten". " You didn't satisfy me sexually when I demand
>so I went elsewhere or " took" you as you are mine." That crap.
>
I don't know the extent to which Greg used such lies to justify
his abusing his ex-wife, Lisa's daughter, and/or anyone else.
And his ex and Lisa's daughter aren't going to be his only
victims. They're the only two in which he was caught.
I seriously doubt he only assaulted his ex twice. I can only
offer proof of two times, since he has only two convictions, but an
abuser typically abuses his victim for a good period of time before
the law is brought in.
I also doubt we know about all of the means by which he abused
Lisa's daughter.
We know about her being outside in Feb. with no coat, shoes or
socks because a neighbor's attention was drawn to it.
We know about Greg's hanging out in the bathroom while she
showered because Greg admits to it. Of course, Greg could have been
lying (it's really difficult to tell).
>
>> Consistent with his predator mind, everything is his victim's
>> fault. Although given the degree of failure he experienced in
>> stalking me, I don't think I could claim myself a victim of his mental
>> defects.
>> It's probably my fault that he learned Kent Bradley Wills, from
>> Ankeny, didn't exist until 1993.
>> My bad :)
>
> He's never going to admit that youtricked him a few times.
He can't. He's invested far too much in his lie.
He may drop it, as he did with the birthday page lie, but that's
it. He is psychologically UNABLE to admit the obvious: That he was
lying and got caught.
What really concerns me is that he may actually believe the lies
he presents.
[...]
>>
>> > Let me tell you this again. I have no sympathy whatsoever for you.
>> >None.Nada. I have far more sympathy for the children of impoverished
>> >parents who hope for a simple toy, ANY toy for Christmas. You I have
>> >no sympathy.
>>
>> More important to Greg is getting people to believe his lie that
>> he was railroaded by DHS. That he did nothing wrong.
>> Of course, when ever anyone checks his claims, they find out DHS
>> was in the right with him. His abuse of Lisa's daughter was so great
>> that sending the girl to live with a woman with a questionable state
>> of mental health was far better than allowing the girl to stay in
>> proximity to Greg.
>> In reality, Grandpa did most of the supervision. Greg refuses to
>> mention this since there was nothing wrong with Grandpa.
>
> Didn't Grandpa create an Ann Coulter event on Greg? Must be hard to
>have to consume only soft foods...
>
Grandpa did punch Greg and either broke Greg's jaw, or seriously
damaged it. I don't have the medical records, pretending I could even
get them.
IMO, Grandpa's punishment was far more than was warranted, given
the facts of the matter, but that's my opinion.
[...]
>>
>> > Nope. Most people are not felons. I don't even have a traffic ticket.
>>
>> I got a speeding ticket back in 1986 or 87.
>> I'd be amazed if it would show up on any background check.
>
> (( Shrugs)) The worst I got was a warning about a non-working
>taillight. I never pushed my cars beyond the speed limit and the way
>other people drive makes me always cautious about potential accidents.
>
I should have gotten a speeding ticket once when I didn't.
I was speeding, and I knew it. I got pulled over.
Figuring I was going to get the ticket no matter what, I thought
bringing some levity to the matter would be nice.
"Why were you going so fast?"
"Because I didn't see you."
The officer actually laughed and said (as best I can recall after
15 or so years), "I thought I'd heard every one, but that's the first
time I've heard that. For making me laugh, I'm just going to give you
a warranting. But this is the only time. I catch you speeding again,
you'll get cited."
It still took about 15 minutes :(
>>
>> >> Do they know about your thing for Kent?
>>
>> > " They" Who's " they"?
>>
>> Probably the voices in Greg's head. :)
>
> Maybe he's forming his own conspiracy theory about all the people who
>are " out to get" him.
While I don't think Greg has full blown paranoia, he does display
having a touch of it. And to a degree beyond what would be seen as
normal.
Of course, it very possible it only looks like paranoia and it's
really a part of his need to be seen as a victim.
--
"I am erudite [sic] but not Buckelyesque"
Gregory Scott Hanson, inmate 1104135, wife and child abuser
Jan 22, 2008
Kent Wills
<dsul...@optonline.net> wrote:
[...]
>> Actually it's spelled out in black letter law in Iowa that
>> robbing an attached garage is residential burglary.
>>
>> No determination to be made by court.
>
>Sounds like your voicing a LEGAL OPINION on the law, grag.
>
>Practicing law without a license?
Pangborn would say so.
Any bets on whether Kenny-Bob will call Greg on his UPL, as
defined by Kenny-Bob?
"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>
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>>> Actually it's spelled out in black letter law in Iowa that
>>> robbing an attached garage is residential burglary.
>>>
>>> No determination to be made by court.
>>
>>Sounds like ---->>> your<<<<---- voicing a LEGAL OPINION on the law, grag.
>>
>>Practicing law without a license?
>
>
>"YOU ARE".
Wow. A spelling flame.
If the spelling was so bad that you couldn't understand the
intended meaning, such would be acceptable.
If you could make a joke out of it, that too would be acceptable.
>
>It is not illegal to pass information concerning what the law is.
>Cops do it all day long.
Dan is actually mocking one of the few people who will support
Greg. Kenneth Robert Pangborn has taken the position that ANY mention
of law is UPL.
It will be interesting to see if Kenny-Bob is able to hold Greg
to the same standards he holds others.
>
>Practicing without a license means you are taking compensation for the
>information when not entitled to do so.
>
>Kind of like taking things that don't belong to you.
As far as I know, Greg's not done this. Though he has made it
clear he's thought about it.
His fanciful claims, which he dishonestly projects onto me, that
an attached garage is not a part of the residence under Iowa law, is
evidence of this.
Greegor
G > you is more of a compliment?
G >
G > Anybody who sees your lame deceptions and
G > mischaracterizations of others quickly recognize
G > that you ARE the guy who appealed your garage
G > burglary conviction on the grounds that an
G > attached garage is not part of a residence.
Richard wrote
R > Technically correct. As a garage is not normally where a person
R > resides. Which then falls under different building zone
categories.
R > However, in the eyes of the law, it is the fact that a person not
R > properly entitled to remove items from that building, has, in
fact,
R > committed a crime.
R >
R > While there was no immediate threat of harm to persons inside the
R > actual residence, the laws of the state may see it as a
"proximity"
R > case. That would be determined by the court.
G > Actually it's spelled out in black letter law in Iowa that
G > robbing an attached garage is residential burglary.
G >
G > No determination to be made by court.
DS > Sounds like your voicing a LEGAL OPINION on the law, grag.
DS > Practicing law without a license?
The Iowa Supreme Court cited the black letter law
themselves in their PUBLIC ruling on Kent's appeal.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>G > Actually it's spelled out in black letter law in Iowa that
>G > robbing an attached garage is residential burglary.
>G >
>G > No determination to be made by court.
>
>DS > Sounds like your voicing a LEGAL OPINION on the law, grag.
>DS > Practicing law without a license?
>
>The Iowa Supreme Court cited the black letter law
>themselves in their PUBLIC ruling on Kent's appeal.
Why do you post that which you KNOW is not true? I've never
filed an appeal for any court action, as you know. Or are you once
again proving you hold the delusion that everyone with the same first
and last name are all the same person?
Once again you PROVE you lack the ability to be honest about
anything at any time. Unless it's by accident. Or you've proved that
you are so screwed up, mentally, that you actually believe everyone
with the same first and last name are all the same person.
Do you actually believe the lies you present? This is a serious
question you've never been able to acknowledge, let alone answer.
Please answer it now. I'd really like to know.
BTW, according to your buddy, Kenneth Robert Pangborn, citing
court rulings is UPL. By his standards, if no one else's, you're
guilty of it.
I'm wondering if he'll hold you to the same standards as he has
others. Maybe those who have been convicted, twice, for beating up
their wife and got themselves placed on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry
get a pass in his mind.
Time will tell.
Greegor
escape it, the burden of proof is not on anybody else.
Causing your name and birthday to be edited out
of your own OLD birthday page didn't help you.
I thought it was funnier when you tried the ruse that
some buddy of yours faked your criminal listing
on state web sites. (All three? Ongoing basis?)
Besides, that claim starts with claiming your identity
as Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8, 1969.
And WHY would you try to back out of a
""fake ID"" so good that it's totally believable?
If it's misleading, isn't that EXACTLY what
you would create a ""fake ID"" for?
Why would you want to counter such a
great ""Fake ID"" ?
But I can think of lots of reasons why you'd like to
counter an ID that is correct.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>Kent, You adopted the ""fake ID"" so if you wish to
>escape it, the burden of proof is not on anybody else.
You've claimed my name in real life is Kent Wills. It befalls
YOU to prove that claim or admit that you've been lying the whole
time.
Which will it be, Greg? I leave you no other options. Prove my
name in real life is Kent Wills or admit you've been lying.
>
>Causing your name and birthday to be edited out
>of your own OLD birthday page didn't help you.
Why do you present that which you KNOW is not true?
Again, I can't recall the password assigned. Because of this, I
can't access it. I can't grant anyone else access either.
The real problem for you is that I asked you why you were posting
that which you knew was a lie for a few months. If I could have
accessed the site, I would have done so before the first time I asked
you. It served no purpose to ask you why you were lying if anyone
could go to the page and see what you claimed was there was there.
It did serve me to have you consistently posting the link while
lying and claiming it contained what you knew it did not.
Clearly you believe the lies you present. You are far more
screwed up that I ever dared to imagine.
>
>I thought it was funnier when you tried the ruse that
>some buddy of yours faked your criminal listing
>on state web sites. (All three? Ongoing basis?)
>
That you see truth as funny is a sad commentary about you. Not a
surprising one, but a sad one.
What is the cause of this specific psychosis of yours, Greg?
Serious question.
>Besides, that claim starts with claiming your identity
>as Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8, 1969.
Wrong.
Care to try a different lie? A possible, if not plausible, one?
>
>And WHY would you try to back out of a
>""fake ID"" so good that it's totally believable?
>
Who is backing out? I still use the Kent Wills nym.
You should try better lies. You're not even trying to hide them.
>If it's misleading, isn't that EXACTLY what
>you would create a ""fake ID"" for?
Again you prove you can't be honest.
I didn't create it. I've never claimed I created it.
I have stated, many times, that a friend made it when he gave me
use of one of his Prodigy sub accounts. Why are you so unable to
acknowledge this? Is honesty that difficult for you?
Again you offer the proof that you are psychologically UNABLE to
be honest. Get the mental health care you so desperately NEED.
I'm being very serious, Greg. My telling you to get help isn't
intended as an insult.
>
>Why would you want to counter such a
>great ""Fake ID"" ?
>
Outside of your latest proof that you are psychologically UNABLE
to be honest, unless you make a mistake, I've made no counter.
Asking you to prove your claim that my name in real life is Kent
Wills and that I am, according to you, the Kent Wills in Ankeny,
Sailorville, and Webster City, Iowa, Rogers and Little Rock AR, etc.
isn't countering to the mentally balanced mind.
Pretending for a moment that my name in real life is Kent Wills,
explain how I can be so many different Kent Wills at the same time.
You've claimed I am each of them. Either you believe I am each of
them, or you lied.
You'll need to prove each one, or admit you've been lying the
whole time. I leave you no other option.
>But I can think of lots of reasons why you'd like to
>counter an ID that is correct.
You've yet to prove the ID is my name in real life. That's your
claim, and it befalls you to prove it. Maybe in your ANTI-American
view the burden of proof doesn't fall on the one making the claim, but
unless your ANTI-American view becomes the norm, it does befall you.
If you did stalk me, as you claimed you were going to (remember,
you claimed it was all my fault that you had to), how did you react to
the complete lack of any reference to Kent Bradley Wills before 1993?
Why are you stalking past and current members of alt.friends?
Do you still hold the delusion that insomnia and claustrophobia
are the same thing?
Do you still think using a treatment for hiccups will have any
real effect on someone who can't sleep because they took a nap earlier
in the evening?
Do you still believe you had a Constitutional right to abuse a six
or seven-year-old girl?
Why do you think that you are exempt from all criminal and civil
laws, as PROVED by court records (yes, I have physical copies of
some)?
Does my asking you these questions feed your psychological NEED
to be seen as a victim (as "diagnosed" by DRDHSISGOODFORYOU)?
If you wish to admit you've been lying the whole time, feel free
to either ignore my post, or snip the bits where I proved you were
lying.
>
Greegor
G > escape it, the burden of proof is not on anybody else.
KW > You've claimed my name in real life is Kent Wills.
Why would you be so interested in
discrediting your own ""fake ID"" ?
Unless it's not a ""fake ID""?
Then you'd have a lot of motivation to confuse the ID.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>G > Kent, You adopted the ""fake ID"" so if you wish to
>G > escape it, the burden of proof is not on anybody else.
>
>KW > You've claimed my name in real life is Kent Wills.
>
>Why would you be so interested in
>discrediting your own ""fake ID"" ?
>
>Unless it's not a ""fake ID""?
>
>Then you'd have a lot of motivation to confuse the ID.
Thank you for admitting, by default, that you've been lying the
whole time.
Your only options were to prove your claim that my name in real
life is Kent Wills, that I am at least five separate people named Kent
Wills, or admit you were lying.
You've offered no proof, so you have admitted you were lying.
I see you're still stalking the members of alt.friends.
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
>
Greegor
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT
05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT
05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRES VS KENT
05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRES VS KENT
05771 STAN201670 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 STAN210929 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
To get the above:
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
Iowa Courts
Online Search
< Start A Case Search Here! > click
Iowa Courts Online Search
Search Selection
Under Trial Court < click on Case Search >
Wills Kent B
(see output above)
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 31 / 04-0202
Filed May 6, 2005
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
KENT BRADLEY WILLS,
Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk
County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.
Defendant appeals claiming ineffective
assistance of counsel. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender,
and Tricia Johnston, Assistant State
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin
Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, John P.
Sarcone, County Attorney, and John Judisch,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
WIGGINS, Justice.
Kent Wills appeals his conviction for
second-degree burglary contending that
an attached garage is a separate occupied
structure from that of the living quarters
of the residence. In this appeal, we must
determine whether trial counsel was
ineffective for (1) failing to move for
judgment of acquittal on the basis there
was insufficient evidence to convict Wills
of second-degree burglary when he entered
an attached garage of a residence when no
persons were present in the garage, but
when persons were present in the living
quarters; and (2) failing to object to a
jury instruction based on this same
argument. Because we find there was no
legal basis for the motion for judgment
of acquittal or the objection to the jury
instruction, Wills' trial counsel was not
ineffective. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Around 1 a.m., an Ankeny resident called
the local police to report that a car
alarm sounded in the resident's
neighborhood. The city dispatched a police
officer to the location. Observing nothing
unusual, the officer left the area, only
to be stopped a couple of blocks later
by a person who informed the officer he
had witnessed someone running from the
area of the car alarm. As the officer
started driving back to the area of the
car alarm, he noticed a person walking
on the sidewalk. The officer asked the
person, a minor, if he had noticed anybody
running from the area. The minor answered
that he had not. While the officer and
another officer were speaking to the minor,
another resident of the neighborhood
arrived in her car and informed the
officers that she had observed two people,
one of whom was heavy set with a blinking
light on his back pocket, walking in the
area of her neighbor's residence. She
observed the heavier-set individual, later
identified as Wills, enter her neighbor's
attached garage through an unlocked service
door. She further observed a smaller
individual standing by a van parked in
the neighbor's driveway.
The officers eventually let the minor leave
even though they found a large amount of
coins, a flashlight, and an electronic
pocket organizer in his pockets. After
releasing the minor, the police officers
drove to the residence where the neighbor
observed the two suspicious people and
woke the owner. The owner, his wife,
and two daughters were in the residence
sleeping at the time. After a search
of his vehicles, the owner discovered
change and an electronic pocket organizer
were missing from the vehicles. The
owner's daughter reported a diamond ring
and some change were missing from her
vehicle. The officers then contacted
the minor's parents, who informed the
officers the minor was with Wills. After
the officers questioned the minor again,
he admitted his involvement in the theft
and implicated Wills in the burglary.
Although Wills denied involvement in the
burglary, the officers arrested him.
The State filed a trial information
charging Wills with second-degree
burglary. The State later amended the
information to include two additional
charges of burglary in the third degree
and using a juvenile to commit an
indictable offense.
The jury returned a verdict finding Wills
guilty of the crimes of burglary in the
second degree, burglary in the third
degree, and using a juvenile to commit
an indictable offense. Wills appeals his
conviction for second-degree burglary
claiming ineffective assistance of
counsel.
II. Scope of Review.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
are derived from the Sixth Amendment of the
United States Constitution. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-86, 104 S.
Ct. 2052, 2063-64, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 691-93
(1984). Our review for a claim involving
violations of the Constitution is de novo.
State v. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d 95, 100
(Iowa 2004). We normally preserve
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
for postconviction relief actions. State
v. Carter, 602 N.W. 2d 818, 820 (Iowa 1999).
However, we will address such claims on
direct appeal when the record is sufficient
to permit a ruling. State v. Artzer,
609 N.W.2d 526, 531 (Iowa 2000). The
appellate record in the present case is
sufficient to allow us to address Wills'
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
on direct appeal.
In order for a defendant to succeed on a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
the defendant must prove: (1) counsel
failed to perform an essential duty and
(2) prejudice resulted. Id. Prejudice
results when "there is a reasonable
probability that, but for the counsel's
unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different."
State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 378
(Iowa 1998) (quoting Strickland, 466
U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068,
80 L. Ed. 2d at 698). Wills' arguments
also raise issues of statutory
interpretation, which we review for
correction of errors at law. State v.
Wolford Corp., 689 N.W.2d 471, 473 (Iowa 2004).
III. Analysis.
To find Wills guilty of burglary in the
second degree, the State had to prove
Wills perpetrated a burglary "in or
upon an occupied structure in which one
or more persons are present . . . ." Iowa
Code § 713.5(2) (2003) (emphasis added).
In this appeal, Wills first contends his
trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to move for a judgment of acquittal on
the basis there was insufficient evidence
to support a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage, there were persons
present in or upon the occupied structure.
Wills concedes the garage was an occupied
structure, but argues the living quarters
and the attached garage are separate and
independent occupied structures; therefore,
the jury could not have found there were
people present in the attached garage
at the time of the burglary.
The Code defines an "occupied structure" as:
[A]ny building, structure, appurtenances
to buildings and structures, land, water
or air vehicle, or similar place adapted
for overnight accommodation of persons,
or occupied by persons for the purpose of
carrying on business or other activity
therein, or for the storage or safekeeping
of anything of value. Such a structure
is an "occupied structure" whether or not
a person is actually present.
Id. § 702.12.
Wills relies on State v. Smothers, 590
N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 1999), to argue the
garage and the living quarters are separate
and independent occupied structures. In
Smothers, two separate and distinct
businesses connected by interior fire doors
were operated in the same structure.
590 N.W.2d at 723. We held the defendant
committed two burglaries by entering each
business because "[t]he facility's
construction history and physical make-up
demonstrate that the portions are
independent working units which constitute
'[a] combination of materials to form a
construction for occupancy [or] use.'" Id.
Smothers is not at odds with the present
case because the living quarters and the
garage are not separate or independent
units of the residence.
Our review of the record reveals the garage
in question was a three-car attached garage
separated from the living quarters by a
door. The same roof covered the garage as
the rest of the residence. The living
quarters surrounded the garage on two sides.
It was structurally no different from any
other room in the residence.
The garage was a functional part of the
residence. On the night of the incident,
the door was unlocked. The owner of the
residence used two stalls in the garage to
park the family vehicles. The owner used
the third stall for his motorcycle. As
such, the garage and the living quarters
are a single "structure" or "building"
functioning as an integral part of the
family residence. Thus, the residence
including the garage is a single
"occupied structure" under section 702.12.
See, e.g., People v. Ingram, 48 Cal. Rptr.
2d 256 (Ct. App.1995) (holding defendant's
entry into an attached garage constituted
first-degree burglary because the garage
was attached to the house; therefore,
burglary of the garage was burglary of
an inhabited dwelling house); People v.
Cunningham, 637 N.E.2d 1247, 1252 (Ill.
App. Ct. 1994) (holding "ordinarily an
attached garage is a 'dwelling' because
it is part of the structure in which
the owner or occupant lives");
State v. Lara, 587 P.2d 52, 53
(N.M. Ct. App. 1978) (holding "burglary
of the [attached] garage was burglary of
the dwelling house because the garage was
a part of the structure used as living
quarters"); People v. Green, 141 A.D.2d
760, 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) (holding
"[s]ince the garage in the present case
was structurally part of a building
which was used for overnight lodging of
various persons, it must be considered
as part of a dwelling"); White v. State,
630 S.W. 2d 340, 342 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982)
(holding an attached garage under the
same roof as the home would be considered
a habitation within the purview of the
penal code because the garage is a
structure appurtenant to and connected
to the house); State v. Murbach, 843 P.
2d 551, 553 (Wash. Ct. App 1993)
(holding the definition of a dwelling
under Washington's burglary statute
included an attached garage).
Had Wills' trial counsel moved for a
judgment of acquittal on the basis there
was insufficient evidence to support
a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage there were no persons
present in or upon the occupied
structure, it would have been overruled
by the court because the owner and his
family were present in the residence at
the time of the burglary.
Wills also claims his counsel was
ineffective for failing to object to
the jury instruction used by the district
court on the same ground; that the
living quarters were a separate and
independent occupied structure from the
attached garage. The instruction as
given stated:
The State must prove all of the following
elements of Burglary in the Second
Degree as to Count I:
1. On or about the 12th day of August,
2003, the defendant or someone he aided
and abetted broke into or entered the
residence at . . . .
2. The residence at . . . was an occupied
structure as defined in Instruction No. 29.
3. The defendant or the person he aided
and abetted did not have permission or
authority to break into the residence at ...
4. The defendant or the person he aided
and abetted did so with the specific
intent to commit a theft therein.
5. During the incident persons were present
in or upon the occupied structure.
If the State has proved all of the elements,
the defendant is guilty of Burglary in the
Second Degree. If the State has failed to prove
any of the elements, the defendant is not
guilty of Burglary in the Second Degree and
you will then consider the charge of
Attempted Burglary in the Second Degree
explained in Instruction No. 21.
(Emphasis added.)
Wills' claim is without merit. As we have
discussed, the residence is the one and
only "occupied structure" under the facts
of this case. Had Wills' trial counsel
made this objection to the instruction,
it would have been overruled.
Therefore, Wills' trial counsel is not
ineffective for failing to move
for a judgment of acquittal or objecting
to the instruction because there was no
legal basis for the motion or objection.
See State v. Hochmuth, 585 N.W.2d 234,
238 (Iowa 1998) (holding trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise an
issue that has no merit).
IV. Disposition.
We affirm the judgment of the district
court because Wills' trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise
meritless issues.
AFFIRMED.
Dan Sullivan
Greegor
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT
05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT
05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRES VS KENT
05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRES VS KENT
05771 STAN201670 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 STAN210929 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
Means to access above ONLINE RECORDS attached at bottom.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
WIGGINS, Justice.
II. Scope of Review.
III. Analysis.
Id. § 702.12.
(Emphasis added.)
IV. Disposition.
AFFIRMED.
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
Iowa Courts
Online Search
< Start A Case Search Here! > click
Iowa Courts Online Search
Search Selection
Under Trial Court < click on Case Search >
Wills Kent B
(output at top)
Dan Sullivan
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Kent Wills
wrote:
>02401 ESPR015146 INA J WILLS ESTATE
[...]
You already admitted all of that was and is nothing but your lies.
It's nice that you want more proof that your drug abuse has made
you dishonest, but it's no longer necessary. Really.
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Information about inmate 1104135, Gregory Scott Hanson, wife and child
abuser:
"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
"I am erudite [sic] but not Buckelyesque"
Gregory Scott Hanson, inmate 1104135, wife and child abuser
Jan 22, 2008
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott Hanson, inmate 1104135, wife and child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
Greegor
What was your 2000 Felony theft for, Kent?
05771 FECR176876 (POLK) [Filings]
Event Filed By Filed Create Date Last Updated Action Date
ORDER FOR PROBATION REVOCATION HEARING MOISAN CYNTHIA M 12/05/2008
12/05/2008 12/05/2008
Comments: ON 1/7/09 AT 9:30AM RM204
PROBATION REVOCATION 12/05/2008 12/05/2008 12/05/2008
Comments: REPORT OF VIOLATIONS FILED BY JAN HORNOCKER
FORMAL PROBATION HUTCHISON ROBERT A 01/25/2006 01/26/2006
01/26/2006
Comments: EXTENDED TO 01/16/09 OR UNTIL CONDITIONS ARE MET
Kent Wills
wrote:
>What were the "conditions", Kent?
Since the exist solely within the confines of your drug damaged
mind, you are the only one who can answer that.
>
>What was your 2000 Felony theft for, Kent?
Since this is another of your flash back delusions, I can't know.
What lies will you tell when I'm still posting on January 8,
2009? You're going to need something to explain how, in direct
contrast to your lies, my non-existent probation/parole (you've
claimed both for me) didn't get revoked.
You will, of course, try to ignore it. You'll simply not reply
to me when I ask you about it beginning on Jan. 8th.
Eventually you will need to address the lies you've told. Here
are some suggestions for lies you might want to try as a means to get
out of your current lies:
1) At the last minute, I met whatever phantom conditions your
past, and possibly current, drug abuse created in your mind.
2) The Bilderburgs, in association with the NWO, stepped in.
This would work well with your ANTI-American stance.
3) Magic Pixies!
4) The whole of the Cedar Rapids area is under a state of
emergency.
This one will make no sense, so it's probably your best bet.
Feel free to use any of the above. You don't even need to credit
me for it, if you use one of them.
Seriously, what will you do when you are once again proved the
pathological liar you are?
Greegor
Iowa Courts
Online Search
< Start A Case Search Here! > click
Iowa Courts Online Search
Search Selection
Under Trial Court < click on Case Search >
Wills Kent B
02401 ESPR015146 INA J WILLS ESTATE
Kent Wills
wrote:
>http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
>
>Iowa Courts
>Online Search
>
>< Start A Case Search Here! > click
Did you like my suggestions for the lies you can use when this
latest lie is exposed?
You're going to need something to explain away the fact that you
lied.
If you could overcome your need to lie and start being honest,
you wouldn't need to worry about such things.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
>
>Iowa Courts
>Online Search
Are you so worried about your past illegal drug abuse record
becoming public? Afraid that everyone will see you for the stoned
loser you were, are, and will be?
I may make the records available. Of course, it's enough to know
you're so terrified that you've reverted to lying in a pathetic
attempt to draw attention away from it for now.
Pooooooor stalker (by your definition) Greg.
Greegor
Event Filed By Filed Create Date Last Updated Action Date
ORDER FOR PROBATION REVOCATION HEARING MOISAN CYNTHIA M 12/05/2008
12/05/2008 12/05/2008
Comments: ON 1/7/09 AT 9:30AM RM204
PROBATION REVOCATION 12/05/2008 12/05/2008 12/05/2008
Comments: REPORT OF VIOLATIONS FILED BY JAN HORNOCKER
FORMAL PROBATION HUTCHISON ROBERT A 01/25/2006 01/26/2006
01/26/2006
Comments: EXTENDED TO 01/16/09 OR UNTIL CONDITIONS ARE MET
02401 ESPR015146 INA J WILLS ESTATE
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT
05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT
05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRES VS KENT
05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRES VS KENT
05771 STAN201670 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 STAN210929 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
Means to access above ONLINE RECORDS attached at bottom.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
WIGGINS, Justice.
II. Scope of Review.
III. Analysis.
Id. § 702.12.
(Emphasis added.)
IV. Disposition.
AFFIRMED.
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
Iowa Courts
Online Search
< Start A Case Search Here! > click
Iowa Courts Online Search
Search Selection
Under Trial Court < click on Case Search >
Wills Kent B
(output at top)
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
Charges, Dispositions, Sentences
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
Citation Number:
Defendant: WILLS, KENT BRADLEY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 01 Charge
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Offense Date: 08/12/2003 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0668408-01
Adjudication
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Adj.:
DNU-GUILTY Adj.Date: 12/17/2003
Adj.Judge:
HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Comments: GUILTY
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 150 Hour(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
12/17/2003 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 02 Charge
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Offense Date: 08/12/2003 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0668408-02
Adjudication
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Adj.:
DNU-GUILTY Adj.Date: 12/17/2003
Adj.Judge:
HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Comments: GUILTY
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 150 Hour(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
12/17/2003 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/06/09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 03 Charge
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Offense Date: 08/12/2003 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0668408-03
Adjudication
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Adj.:
DNU-GUILTY Adj.Date: 12/17/2003
Adj.Judge:
HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Comments: GUILTY
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 150 Hour(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
12/17/2003 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
Kent Wills
wrote:
>05771 FECR176876 (POLK) [Filings]
>
>Event Filed By Filed Create Date Last Updated Action Date
>ORDER FOR PROBATION REVOCATION HEARING MOISAN CYNTHIA M 12/05/2008
>12/05/2008 12/05/2008
> Comments: ON 1/7/09 AT 9:30AM RM204
>PROBATION REVOCATION 12/05/2008 12/05/2008 12/05/2008
> Comments: REPORT OF VIOLATIONS FILED BY JAN HORNOCKER
>FORMAL PROBATION HUTCHISON ROBERT A 01/25/2006 01/26/2006
>01/26/2006
> Comments: EXTENDED TO 01/16/09 OR UNTIL CONDITIONS ARE MET
>
What are the conditions your brain damage (the result of your
past, and possibly current) illegal drug use created? Until you let
me, and the readers, know, there isn't much chance of the phantom
conditions being met.
>
>
>02401 ESPR015146 INA J WILLS ESTATE
>05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
>05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
>05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT
>05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT
>05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRES VS KENT
>05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRES VS KENT
>05771 STAN201670 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
>05771 STAN210929 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
>05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
>
Since you've already admitted you were lying when you claimed
these applied to me, why are you bringing them up again?
It's been proved they are for at least three different Kent Wills,
none of whom are me (since that's not my name in real life, this is to
be expected).
What lies
>Means to access above ONLINE RECORDS attached at bottom.
>
[...]
> Attorney: N
> Restitution:
> N Drug: N Extradition: N
> Lic.Revoked:
> N DDS: N Batterer:
> Fine Amount:
> Duration:
> Comment:
> PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
Once again you PROVE you can't be honest about anything at any
time. Unless by accident.
There was no means by which to verify your claims. Since you've
already admitted you've been lying the whole time (you didn't mean to,
of course), this isn't a surprise.
What lies are you going to present to cover for these lies? Have
you come up with anything yet?
How about being honest and letting everyone know that you were
lying? I think that will be your best option, though your past drug
abuse caused such brain damage that it's not possible for you. Unless
by accident.
Oh wait, you did state I manipulated you into telling the truth
once. As far as I know, that's the only time your letting the truth
out has been by means of anything other than an accident on your part.
forevernitefan
> On Fri, 5 Dec 2008 04:54:34 -0800 (PST), forevernitefan
>
He abuses women and female children and suffered a jaw injury from a
GRANDPA ( broken jaw or merely a tooth knocked loose, it still has the
same image of him as the opposite of a tough guy), so I wouldn't doubt
he's fearful of more bodily injury for what he does. I agree with you
in that an abuser like him does not stop and we only know at what he
was CAUGHT doing. We don't know what he got away with, probably for
years.
And him trying to lure Pangborn into aiding him. Sheesh!!
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
forevernitefan
Then GO to it, chicken-boy.
forevernitefan
> G > Kent, You adopted the ""fake ID"" so if you wish to
> G > escape it, the burden of proof is not on anybody else.
>
> KW > You've claimed my name in real life is Kent Wills.
>
> Why would you be so interested in
> discrediting your own ""fake ID"" ?
>
> Unless it's not a ""fake ID""?
Or he's having some fun with you running around thinking his real
name is Kent Wills.
In all honesty, whatever his name really is, what YOU are doing is
obsessing about him, wasting who knows how many hours per week
concerning Kent. You even have to deceive and lie to try to feed your
stalking of Kent. You deliberately omitted the middle initial of a few
of the cases you cited AND some of the cases you just cited,
interestingly enough, don't appear on the web site you mentioned.
Considering how some people act concerning Kent, I can see why he
would post online NOT using his real name. It would be a precautionary
measure and it adds a benefit of luring stalkers like you to waste
hours of time doing " research". Your scattershot approach, including
names with various middle initials, shows your sloppiness and your
desperation.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
>
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 6, 12:53 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> G > Kent, You adopted the ""fake ID"" so if you wish to
>> G > escape it, the burden of proof is not on anybody else.
>>
>> KW > You've claimed my name in real life is Kent Wills.
>>
>> Why would you be so interested in
>> discrediting your own ""fake ID"" ?
>>
>> Unless it's not a ""fake ID""?
>
> Or he's having some fun with you running around thinking his real
>name is Kent Wills.
He knows it's not. Unless he wishes to admit he's far more
incompetent than he's ever presented, he learned that the name Kent
Bradley Wills didn't exist for anyone in Iowa (possibly the entire
U.S.) prior to 1993.
>
> In all honesty, whatever his name really is,
My first two initials are K. B. However, my name in real life is
not Kent Bradley.
There are a total of four people on-line who know my real name.
I offered to tell Betty long before Greg proved himself to be the
Romper Room reject he is. I mention this because it helps to prove I
didn't decide to lie to cover up anything Greg's found. There's no
gain in trying to cover up something that isn't known to exist.
>what YOU are doing is
>obsessing about him, wasting who knows how many hours per week
>concerning Kent.
Greg lives off the welfare of Lisa. This, in and of itself, isn't
a problem. If Greg wants to stay home and perform the duties of a
house husband, more power to him! Why should women be the only ones
allowed the option to stay at home?
Of course, Greg never did perform such duties, as proved by the
massive piles of junk found all over the trailer home.
Because of Greg's not working, he has a lot of free time. Rather
than do something productive, like volunteer with a local charity,
Greg stalks those who have proved him the pathological liar he is.
>You even have to deceive and lie to try to feed your
>stalking of Kent. You deliberately omitted the middle initial of a few
>of the cases you cited AND some of the cases you just cited,
>interestingly enough, don't appear on the web site you mentioned.
Yep.
Greg's need to lie is so great that he had to lie and claim a
link to the proof could be found at the bottom of his post.
There was no link, of course. The link he did provide much
further up didn't offer anything in the way of evidence, let alone
proof.
>
> Considering how some people act concerning Kent, I can see why he
>would post online NOT using his real name.
Actually, it wasn't much of a choice for me. The Kent name was
given by a friend when he allowed me to use his B account on Prodigy.
It's in reference to Kent Dorfman from Animal House.
>It would be a precautionary
>measure and it adds a benefit of luring stalkers like you to waste
>hours of time doing " research". Your scattershot approach, including
>names with various middle initials, shows your sloppiness and your
>desperation.
>
Greg will eventually be proved the liar he is. Again. When I'm
still posting after Jan. 7th, he'll have no choice but to admit he was
lying. Or his "friend" set him up for a MASSIVE fall.
Either way, Greg's not going to have much fun on Usenet as I'll
be asking him about it in every reply to his posts.
Maybe he'll stop cross-posting to off-topic groups as a means to
avoid having to face the truth. On e can hope.
Dan Sullivan
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2l7rj49fb3qtudta0...@4ax.com...
> It's in reference to Kent Dorfman from Animal House.
FLOUNDER!!!
I knew you looked familiar!!!
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >> > " They" Who's " they"?
>>
>> >> Probably the voices in Greg's head. :)
>>
>> > Maybe he's forming his own conspiracy theory about all the people who
>> >are " out to get" him.
>>
>> While I don't think Greg has full blown paranoia, he does display
>> having a touch of it. And to a degree beyond what would be seen as
>> normal.
>> Of course, it very possible it only looks like paranoia and it's
>> really a part of his need to be seen as a victim.
>
> He abuses women and female children and suffered a jaw injury from a
>GRANDPA ( broken jaw or merely a tooth knocked loose, it still has the
>same image of him as the opposite of a tough guy),
Grandpa's punishment was far too extreme, IMO.
Yes, he was guilty of assault, but given that he assaulted the man
who abused his granddaughter emotionally, physically and sexually (by
Greg's standards of proof), I think a $100.00 should have been the
extent.
Oh well. They didn't ask me, and it's too late now.
>so I wouldn't doubt
>he's fearful of more bodily injury for what he does. I agree with you
>in that an abuser like him does not stop and we only know at what he
>was CAUGHT doing. We don't know what he got away with, probably for
>years.
Since he made no effort to discredit the claim about his hanging
out in the bathroom while the little girl showered, it's either
absolutely true or... well, it's absolutely true.
Greg is sexually attracted to underage girls. I don't know to
what degree he's acted on this attraction. He's asked about a
friend's underage daughter, my own underage daughter and a former
underage female student of mine.
Had he meant anything other than the sexual interest most appear
to have seen, he surely would have made mention of it. Something
like, "Oh, I noticed the pictures of the TV, but thought Cheyenne was
your daughter and saw a chance to get at you through her." He still
would be the reprobate he was and is, but at least the consensus that
he lusts after children would be harder to acknowledge.
However, the truth that his asking about her was sexual in nature
was and is so strong, Greg couldn't counter it. He had to run away
from the topic. Some truths are that strong.
Further by his standards of proof, he did "cop a feel" of the
little girl's genital area, however, the claims of a CPS caseworker
aren't seen as definitive proof by anyone but Greg.
>
> And him trying to lure Pangborn into aiding him. Sheesh!!
Kenny-Bob and Greg have a symbiotic relationship in which each
one feeds the lies of the other.
When it was proved that Kenny-Bob had lied about the David Moore
we know being charged with an assault in Indiana, Greg continued to
feed the lie. Kenny-Bob is doing the same with Greg's lie.
Both see this as perfectly normal behavior.
Kent Wills
I was well over 300 pounds when I first watched the movie. I made
the comment to my friend, "I'm the Kent Dorfman of the 90's."
As a means to continue the joke, he assigned me the name Kent when
he set up the Prodigy account.
I could have used my real life name at any time, but using the
Dorfman nym has served me very well.
--
When cryptography is outlawed,
bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
Greegor
Moe > around thinking his real name is Kent Wills.
Then why complain (on his behalf, BTW) ?
Moe > In all honesty, whatever his name really
Moe > is, what YOU are doing is obsessing
Moe > about him, wasting who knows how
Moe > many hours per week concerning Kent.
Moe > You even have to deceive and lie to try
Moe > to feed your stalking of Kent.
Moe > You deliberately omitted the middle
Moe > initial of a few of the cases you cited
Moe > AND some of the cases you just cited,
Moe > interestingly enough, don't appear
Moe > on the web site you mentioned.
How is it that instructions on how to go
to an official court docket and disposition
web site and type in Wills Kent B is
omitting a middle initial that matters?
How is that a deception?
Moe > Considering how some people act
Moe > concerning Kent, I can see why he
Moe > would post online NOT using his
Moe > real name. It would be a precautionary
Moe > measure and it adds a benefit of
Moe > luring stalkers like you to waste hours
Moe > of time doing " research".
LOL!
WHY would it take hours to cut and paste?
Why are you so anxious to say that
Kent Wills is not Kent Wills? Whose
burden of proof would it be to do so?
Moe > Your scattershot approach, including
Moe > names with various middle initials,
Moe > shows your sloppiness and your
Moe > desperation.
Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8, 1969
Anxious to confuse that aren't you? Why?
Are you going to the January 7th hearing, Maureen?
05771 FECR176876 (POLK) [Filings]
Event Filed By Filed Create Date Last Updated Action Date
ORDER FOR PROBATION REVOCATION HEARING MOISAN CYNTHIA M 12/05/2008
12/05/2008 12/05/2008
Comments: ON 1/7/09 AT 9:30AM RM204
PROBATION REVOCATION 12/05/2008 12/05/2008 12/05/2008
Comments: REPORT OF VIOLATIONS FILED BY JAN HORNOCKER
FORMAL PROBATION HUTCHISON ROBERT A 01/25/2006 01/26/2006
01/26/2006
Comments: EXTENDED TO 01/16/09 OR UNTIL CONDITIONS ARE MET
02401 ESPR015146 INA J WILLS ESTATE
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT
05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT
05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRES VS KENT
05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRES VS KENT
05771 STAN201670 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 STAN210929 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
Means to access above ONLINE RECORDS attached at bottom.
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
WIGGINS, Justice.
II. Scope of Review.
III. Analysis.
Id. § 702.12.
(Emphasis added.)
IV. Disposition.
AFFIRMED.
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
Iowa Courts
Online Search
Wills Kent B
(output at top)
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
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 150 Hour(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
12/17/2003 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 150 Hour(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
12/17/2003 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/06/09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 150 Hour(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
12/17/2003 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Dan Sullivan
> Moe > Or he's having some fun with you running
> Moe > around thinking his real name is Kent Wills.
>
> Then why complain (on his behalf, BTW) ?
Because you keep posting the same information over and over.
What will you do when K B Wills is waiting for you at the courthouse,
grag?
forevernitefan
> Moe > Or he's having some fun with you running
> Moe > around thinking his real name is Kent Wills.
>
> Then why complain (on his behalf, BTW) ?
I'm not complaining, Greg. I'm just pointing out something that
apparently is beyond your comprehension.
>
> Moe > In all honesty, whatever his name really
> Moe > is, what YOU are doing is obsessing
> Moe > about him, wasting who knows how
> Moe > many hours per week concerning Kent.
> Moe > You even have to deceive and lie to try
> Moe > to feed your stalking of Kent.
>
> Moe > You deliberately omitted the middle
> Moe > initial of a few of the cases you cited
> Moe > AND some of the cases you just cited,
> Moe > interestingly enough, don't appear
> Moe > on the web site you mentioned.
>
> How is it that instructions on how to go
> to an official court docket and disposition
> web site and type in Wills Kent B is
> omitting a middle initial that matters?
Its the frequency of your C&Ps and that you have been doing this
obsessively for months. Its your dishonesty in including names that
have a different initial. Its your deception to include in the list
"cases" that don't exist on the web site you mentioned.
If the court docket is legit, since you don't have a job you can go to
the courthouse and see " Kent Wills" in person. However if it is no
tlegit and you know it, you will make lame excuses when the time
comes.
>
> How is that a deception?
You listed cases that are not on the web site, dumbass.
>
> Moe > Considering how some people act
> Moe > concerning Kent, I can see why he
> Moe > would post online NOT using his
> Moe > real name. It would be a precautionary
> Moe > measure and it adds a benefit of
> Moe > luring stalkers like you to waste hours
> Moe > of time doing " research".
>
> LOL!
> WHY would it take hours to cut and paste?
>
> Why are you so anxious to say that
> Kent Wills is not Kent Wills? Whose
> burden of proof would it be to do so?
>
> Moe > Your scattershot approach, including
> Moe > names with various middle initials,
> Moe > shows your sloppiness and your
> Moe > desperation.
>
> Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8, 1969
>
> Anxious to confuse that aren't you? Why?
Projection noted. You have yet to even prove that " Kent WiIls" is
his real name or why two supposed criminal convictions suddenly
vanished. Worse still you add another " Kent Wills" with a different
birthdate.
How can one guy have two different legal birthdates?
>
> Are you going to the January 7th hearing, Maureen?
>
I'm employed, Greg. I don't have your free time. Also I don't live
in that state. You and your scum spawn buddy Pangborn can attend and
jack each other off.
BTW I find it amusing that a person like you who has a criminal
record involving crimes against persons has the audacity to bash a guy
you claim has criminal convictions and you're desperate enough to mix
various " Kent Wills" into one person. It would be like a vomit-
encrusted bum in the gutter sneering at a passerby for bad color
coordination.
Greegor
Moe > around thinking his real name is Kent Wills.
G > Then why complain (on his behalf, BTW) ?
Moe > I'm not complaining, Greg. I'm just
Moe > pointing out something that apparently
Moe > is beyond your comprehension.
Moe > In all honesty, whatever his name really
Moe > is, what YOU are doing is obsessing
Moe > about him, wasting who knows how
Moe > many hours per week concerning Kent.
Moe > You even have to deceive and lie to try
Moe > to feed your stalking of Kent.
Moe > You deliberately omitted the middle
Moe > initial of a few of the cases you cited
Moe > AND some of the cases you just cited,
Moe > interestingly enough, don't appear
Moe > on the web site you mentioned.
G > How is it that instructions on how to go
G > to an official court docket and disposition
G > web site and type in Wills Kent B is
G > omitting a middle initial that matters?
Moe > Its the frequency of your C&Ps and that
Moe > you have been doing this obsessively
Moe > for months.
It was just fine with you when it went the other way.
You even "joined in".
Moe > Its your dishonesty in
Moe > including names that have a different
Moe > initial. Its your deception to include in
Moe > the list "cases" that don't exist on the
Moe > web site you mentioned.
Moe >
Moe > If the court docket is legit,
Please explain how it would be anything but legit.
It's an official government web site.
Moe > since you don't have a job you
Moe > can go to the courthouse and
Moe > see " Kent Wills" in person.
Moe > However if it is no tlegit and
Moe > you know it, you will make
Moe > lame excuses when the
Moe > time comes.
How could the official court docket site be not legit?
G > How is that a deception?
Moe > You listed cases that are not on the web site, dumbass.
Anybody going to the Iowa court docket/disposition site
can see where the list came from.
What cases do you think are not on the state web site?
Moe > Projection noted. You have yet to even
Moe > prove that " Kent WiIls" is his real name
Kent claims he adopted the ""fake ID"" so
why are you so anxious to discredit it?
If it's a ""Fake ID"" this makes no sense.
If the ID is correct, then your protests
(on his behalf) make sense.
Moe > or why two supposed criminal
Moe > convictions suddenly vanished.
Moe > Worse still you add another
Moe > "Kent Wills" with a different
Moe > birthdate.
Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8, 1969
In the court docket/disposition site I suggest
searching on Wills, Kent B. but if you want to
see the other Wills out there, leave off the B.
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Moe > Or he's having some fun with you running
>Moe > around thinking his real name is Kent Wills.
>
>Then why complain (on his behalf, BTW) ?
>
Exposing you for the pathological liar you are isn't complaining,
Greg.
>Moe > In all honesty, whatever his name really
>Moe > is, what YOU are doing is obsessing
>Moe > about him, wasting who knows how
>Moe > many hours per week concerning Kent.
>Moe > You even have to deceive and lie to try
>Moe > to feed your stalking of Kent.
>
>Moe > You deliberately omitted the middle
>Moe > initial of a few of the cases you cited
>Moe > AND some of the cases you just cited,
>Moe > interestingly enough, don't appear
>Moe > on the web site you mentioned.
>
>How is it that instructions on how to go
>to an official court docket and disposition
>web site and type in Wills Kent B is
>omitting a middle initial that matters?
>
>How is that a deception?
>
You know that even if my name in real life is Kent Wills, none of
the Kent you mention is me.
You try to present that all of them are, yet are UNABLE to
explain how I'm so many different people at the same time.
>Moe > Considering how some people act
>Moe > concerning Kent, I can see why he
>Moe > would post online NOT using his
>Moe > real name. It would be a precautionary
>Moe > measure and it adds a benefit of
>Moe > luring stalkers like you to waste hours
>Moe > of time doing " research".
>
>LOL!
>WHY would it take hours to cut and paste?
>
Because you're very stupid.
>Why are you so anxious to say that
>Kent Wills is not Kent Wills? Whose
>burden of proof would it be to do so?
>
The burden to prove your claim is yours.
You've so far been UNABLE to do so.
>Moe > Your scattershot approach, including
>Moe > names with various middle initials,
>Moe > shows your sloppiness and your
>Moe > desperation.
>
>Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8, 1969
Is a fictional character. As you already know, but lack the
psychological ability to admit.
>
>Anxious to confuse that aren't you? Why?
>
>Are you going to the January 7th hearing, Maureen?
Whereas the hearing exists solely within the confines of your drug
addled mind, she can't attend.
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
"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
Information about inmate 1104135, Gregory Scott Hanson, wife and child
Kent Wills
<dsul...@optonline.net> wrote:
>On Dec 8, 6:17 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Moe > Or he's having some fun with you running
>> Moe > around thinking his real name is Kent Wills.
>>
>> Then why complain (on his behalf, BTW) ?
>
>Because you keep posting the same information over and over.
Greg's drug damaged mind has him believing that if he posts the
same thing over and over, it will magically become the truth.
>
>What will you do when K B Wills is waiting for you at the courthouse,
>grag?
I doubt anyone named Kent B. Wills will be there. I'll be there
waiting to see if Greg has learned of the value of shampoo.
I expect that he'll have some sort of emergency arise that will
prevent him from attending. Once it's proved he was lying about the
whole thing, another emergency will prevent him from posting to Usenet
for a long time as well.
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> How is it that instructions on how to go
>> to an official court docket and disposition
>> web site and type in Wills Kent B is
>> omitting a middle initial that matters?
>
> Its the frequency of your C&Ps and that you have been doing this
>obsessively for months. Its your dishonesty in including names that
>have a different initial. Its your deception to include in the list
>"cases" that don't exist on the web site you mentioned.
>
Greg knows this, but can't be honest.
>If the court docket is legit, since you don't have a job you can go to
>the courthouse and see " Kent Wills" in person. However if it is no
>tlegit and you know it, you will make lame excuses when the time
>comes.
I expect some sort of emergency to suddenly occur on the night of
the sixth.
It will be so great that he won't be able to post to Usenet for
several weeks.
>
>>
>> How is that a deception?
>
> You listed cases that are not on the web site, dumbass.
It's a part of Greg's NEED to lie. Unless he makes a mistake, or
is manipulated into it, Greg can't be honest.
>
>>
>> Moe > Considering how some people act
>> Moe > concerning Kent, I can see why he
>> Moe > would post online NOT using his
>> Moe > real name. It would be a precautionary
>> Moe > measure and it adds a benefit of
>> Moe > luring stalkers like you to waste hours
>> Moe > of time doing " research".
>>
>> LOL!
>> WHY would it take hours to cut and paste?
>>
>> Why are you so anxious to say that
>> Kent Wills is not Kent Wills? Whose
>> burden of proof would it be to do so?
>>
>> Moe > Your scattershot approach, including
>> Moe > names with various middle initials,
>> Moe > shows your sloppiness and your
>> Moe > desperation.
>>
>> Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8, 1969
>>
>> Anxious to confuse that aren't you? Why?
>
> Projection noted. You have yet to even prove that " Kent WiIls" is
>his real name or why two supposed criminal convictions suddenly
>vanished.
FELONY convictions.
To be fair, Greg wasn't a part of the discussion when they were
used to make Ted Kaldis and tjab look the fools they were.
>Worse still you add another " Kent Wills" with a different
>birthdate.
In Greg's mind, everyone with the same first and last name are
all the same person. This is why he will state he threatened to
cripple his girlfriend and wants all immigrants put in prison.
>
> How can one guy have two different legal birthdates?
>
Greg's mind is so screwed up from his past, and quite possibly
present, drug abuse, anything is possible.
>>
>> Are you going to the January 7th hearing, Maureen?
>>
> I'm employed, Greg. I don't have your free time. Also I don't live
>in that state. You and your scum spawn buddy Pangborn can attend and
>jack each other off.
An interesting aside.
One is not invited to attend a probation revocation hearing. One
is subpoenaed. Kenny-Bob claims he was invited (which means he was
subpoenaed, unless he was lying) so he MUST show up or risk a warrant
for contempt of court.
>
> BTW I find it amusing that a person like you who has a criminal
>record involving crimes against persons has the audacity to bash a guy
>you claim has criminal convictions and you're desperate enough to mix
>various " Kent Wills" into one person. It would be like a vomit-
>encrusted bum in the gutter sneering at a passerby for bad color
>coordination.
It's the result of Greg's illegal drug abuse in his past.
Possibly his present as well. It would explain a great deal.
BTW, by Greg's own standards, these are his words:
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
--
Kent Wills
wrote:
>G > How is it that instructions on how to go
>G > to an official court docket and disposition
>G > web site and type in Wills Kent B is
>G > omitting a middle initial that matters?
>
>Moe > Its the frequency of your C&Ps and that
>Moe > you have been doing this obsessively
>Moe > for months.
>
>It was just fine with you when it went the other way.
>You even "joined in".
When it's the truth, it's not a witch hunt, Greg.
>
>Moe > Its your dishonesty in
>Moe > including names that have a different
>Moe > initial. Its your deception to include in
>Moe > the list "cases" that don't exist on the
>Moe > web site you mentioned.
>Moe >
>Moe > If the court docket is legit,
>
>Please explain how it would be anything but legit.
>
>It's an official government web site.
Yet it doesn't contain what you dishonestly claim it does.
>
>Moe > since you don't have a job you
>Moe > can go to the courthouse and
>Moe > see " Kent Wills" in person.
>Moe > However if it is no tlegit and
>Moe > you know it, you will make
>Moe > lame excuses when the
>Moe > time comes.
>
>How could the official court docket site be not legit?
>
When it doesn't contain the lies you've presented.
That aside, what does your desperation to avoid Moe's challenge
that you go to the courthouse on the seventh have to do with web
sites?
>G > How is that a deception?
>
>Moe > You listed cases that are not on the web site, dumbass.
>
>Anybody going to the Iowa court docket/disposition site
>can see where the list came from.
You claimed the link would provide the proof. The link didn't
list anything about Ina, or Sweeny, or Citi, or anything save one
claim you made.
You can't be honest Greg. This is very obvious.
>
>What cases do you think are not on the state web site?
What do web sites have to do with Moe calling you on your
cowardice?
>
>Moe > Projection noted. You have yet to even
>Moe > prove that " Kent WiIls" is his real name
>
>Kent claims he adopted the ""fake ID"" so
>why are you so anxious to discredit it?
First, I didn't adopt it. No amount of your lying will alter the
simple truth that it was given to me by a friend.
>If it's a ""Fake ID"" this makes no sense.
>If the ID is correct, then your protests
>(on his behalf) make sense.
Proving you the pathological liar you are is not a protest,
outside of your drug damaged mind.
>
>Moe > or why two supposed criminal
>Moe > convictions suddenly vanished.
>Moe > Worse still you add another
>Moe > "Kent Wills" with a different
>Moe > birthdate.
>
>Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8, 1969
That's one of them. You also have me being a Kent Wills born in
1963, 1972 and 1966.
>
>In the court docket/disposition site I suggest
>searching on Wills, Kent B. but if you want to
>see the other Wills out there, leave off the B.
Why not post the link you claimed proves everything?
If you prefer, you made admit you've been lying the whole time.
Why did you issue the following threat to your girlfriend? By
YOUR standards, you issued the threat.
"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
Why did you post the following to a white supremacist site? By
YOUR standards, you authored it.
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Why are you stalking the members of alt.friends? By the very
definition you posted to accuses others of stalking you, you are
stalking them.
If the reasons are due to your past, and possibly current,
illegal drug usage, decline to even acknowledge the questions.
Greegor
KW > Is a fictional character.
KW > As you already know, but lack the
KW > psychological ability to admit.
If it were a fictional character which you adopted,
then WHY are you trying to expose your own ""Fake ID""?
Rejoice that you are so thoroughly protected
by your ""Fake ID"" ! LOL
Nobody would read that appeal and recognize
your screwy ""logic"", Kent! LOL
krp
> richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote in
> news:6pnij4t30tsdp4qpr...@4ax.com:
>>>> > >Kent, Do you realize that character assassination from
>>>> > >you is more of a compliment?
>>>>
>>>> > >Anybody who sees your lame deceptions and
>>>> > >mischaracterizations of others quickly recognize
>>>> > >that you ARE the guy who appealed your garage
>>>> > >burglary conviction on the grounds that an
>>>> > >attached garage is not part of a residence.
>>>>
>>>> > Technically correct. As a garage is not normally where a person
>>>> > resides. Which then falls under different building zone
>>>> > categories. However, in the eyes of the law, it is the fact that a
>>>> > person not properly entitled to remove items from that building,
>>>> > has, in fact, committed a crime.
>>>>
>>>> Actually it's spelled out in black letter law in Iowa that
>>>> robbing an attached garage is residential burglary.
>>>>
>>>> No determination to be made by court.
>>>
>>>Sounds like ---->>> your<<<<---- voicing a LEGAL OPINION on the law,
>>>grag.
>>>Practicing law without a license?
>> "YOU ARE".
>> It is not illegal to pass information concerning what the law is.
>> Cops do it all day long.
>>
>> Practicing without a license means you are taking compensation for the
>> information when not entitled to do so.
Well Richard both you and Mr. Sullivan are in error. Police often do
pass information about laws, that is within their job to a limited extent.
Sometimes police officers also cross the line and dispense bad legal advice.
Compensation is not relevant to the crime. Giving people legal advice,
especially BAD legal advice, is a crime whether you get paid for it or not.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>G > Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8, 1969
>
>KW > Is a fictional character.
>KW > As you already know, but lack the
>KW > psychological ability to admit.
>
>If it were a fictional character which you adopted,
No amount of your pathological lying will ever alter the truth.
I didn't adopt it. It was given to me.
Does your drug addled mind honestly have you believing that if you
present a lie enough times, it will magically become truth?
>then WHY are you trying to expose your own ""Fake ID""?
>
What exposure does your drug addled mind mean?
>Rejoice that you are so thoroughly protected
>by your ""Fake ID"" ! LOL
You found Kent Bradley Wills didn't exist until 1993.
Does that still have you as pissed as it did at the time?
>
>Nobody would read that appeal and recognize
>your screwy ""logic"", Kent! LOL
Since I've never filed an appeal of any sort, your trying to
imply that it's mine only serves to further prove you the illegal drug
abusing (possibly in recovery, though the evidence for such is sparse)
liar you are.
Why did you, by your standards of proof, issue the following
threat to your girlfriend?
"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
Gregory Scott Hanson, inmate 1104135, wife and child abuser, and
illegal drug abuser (possibly recovering) admits to having a scat
fetish in MID
<95d4e047-09f4-4722...@n10g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
Note the subject title.
forevernitefan
Actually he's pointing out the fact that Kaldis, Tjab and you are
actually that stupid to think " Kent Wills" is his real name. He's not
" trying to expose his fake ID" as you try to twist it. He's simply
telling you that he let you and other online stalkers that his real
name is Kent Wills and you jerks fed on that, wasting your time in
doing snark hunts.
I've discussed with Tjab before how the altering of two felony
convictions in that one web site alerted me to the possibility that
the web page was phony. You can say the same old crap over and over
like Tjab did and I will still give the same answer.
Your main problem is PROVING that this " Kent Wills" is in fact the "
convicted garage burglar". You have yet to prove that is his real
name. Worse still, you live close enough to the courthouse in question
to make a day trip and see the alleged courthouse documents for
yourself. Since you don't have a job and gas prices have fallen low
enough for a few hours worth of dumpster diving to pay for the gas,
and sice you claim the documents do exist, it would be in your best
interest to actually make the trip and get scanned copies of the court
documents.
Assuming they exist, OC.
And with these scanned copies you can post them online and gleefully
rub itin my face.
Assuming they exist, OC.
But then if they DON'T exist, and you know they don't exist, you
would have reason to not make the trip.
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 10, 1:59 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> G > Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8, 1969
>>
>> KW > Is a fictional character.
>> KW > As you already know, but lack the
>> KW > psychological ability to admit.
>>
>> If it were a fictional character which you adopted,
>> then WHY are you trying to expose your own ""Fake ID""?
>>
>> Rejoice that you are so thoroughly protected
>> by your ""Fake ID"" ! LOL
>>
>> Nobody would read that appeal and recognize
>> your screwy ""logic"", Kent! LOL
>
> Actually he's pointing out the fact that Kaldis, Tjab and you are
>actually that stupid to think " Kent Wills" is his real name.
Greg also LIES and claims I adopted the name. This implies I was
involved in the creation.
Greg is well aware that I've always maintained it was assigned by
a friend. But honesty isn't an option for Greg. Except by accident.
>He's not
>" trying to expose his fake ID" as you try to twist it. He's simply
>telling you that he let you and other online stalkers that his real
>name is Kent Wills and you jerks fed on that, wasting your time in
>doing snark hunts.
The use of the name Kent wasn't intended for such, but it worked
out that way.
>
>I've discussed with Tjab before how the altering of two felony
>convictions in that one web site alerted me to the possibility that
>the web page was phony. You can say the same old crap over and over
>like Tjab did and I will still give the same answer.
When an obsessive gets a target, almost nothing can deter
him/her. A *perfect* example is Ted's unending obsession with Ken
Smith's dealings with the Bar.
Greg hasn't reached that level of obsession yet. However, I can
see where he's trying.
>
> Your main problem is PROVING that this " Kent Wills" is in fact the "
>convicted garage burglar". You have yet to prove that is his real
>name. Worse still, you live close enough to the courthouse in question
>to make a day trip and see the alleged courthouse documents for
>yourself. Since you don't have a job and gas prices have fallen low
>enough for a few hours worth of dumpster diving to pay for the gas,
>and sice you claim the documents do exist, it would be in your best
>interest to actually make the trip and get scanned copies of the court
>documents.
>
> Assuming they exist, OC.
Either Greg KNOWS they do not, or he strongly suspects they do
not. He may have seen tjab's lie of having seen them followed by the
frantic back peddling.
Upon seeing tjab's claim, Greg accepted that they must be real,
since doing so fit his agenda. Upon finding out that you exposed
tjab's lie, he had to either admit the truth, or continue to lie about
them existing. He's opted to lie, which should not come as a surprise
to anyone.
>
> And with these scanned copies you can post them online and gleefully
>rub itin my face.
>
> Assuming they exist, OC.
>
> But then if they DON'T exist, and you know they don't exist, you
>would have reason to not make the trip.
>
If he fails to show up at the courthouse on the 7th, it will be
seen as absolute proof that Greg is nothing more than the lying coward
he presents himself to be.
I do hope he shows up. I want to know if the picture I was sent
was really one of him and his friend Dennis. If the picture was of
Greg and Dennis, I can only hope they've learned the joy of soap and
shampoo since it was taken.
I wonder what lies Greg has at the ready to explain away why I'll
be posting after the fictional revocation hearing. He'll likely go
with my suggestion that at the last minute, I met the mythical
conditions his mind created.
It would still be a lie, of course, but it would be plausible.
Greegor
Kent, You've used the name for how long?
You maintained a web page with your birthday, for YEARS.
KW > This implies I was involved in the
KW > creation. Greg is well aware that I've
KW > always maintained it was assigned by
KW > a friend.
I never accused you of organized identity fraud,
but try that as a defense with Judge Moisan!
You'll have to do better than these various
red herring fakes to convince me you're
not the famous Garage Burglar Kent
Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8, 1969.
Why would a grown ass man be "assigned"
a name and adopt it even to the point
of maintaining a birthday web page
listing for the ""assigned"" ""fictional identity""?
Why would the ""fictional identity"" and
birthday appear on several official state
court and corrections web sites?
But even MORE bizarre:
What made you think these assertions would cause
somebody to believe you MORE rather than less?
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>KW > Greg also LIES and claims I adopted the name.
>
>Kent, You've used the name for how long?
I would have thought you could do simple math. Most fourth
graders can. Clearly I've over estimated your intelligence.
Since I got it in 1993, and it's not 2008, the answer will be 14
years.
Do you need Lisa to dress you in the morning?
>You maintained a web page with your birthday, for YEARS.
Once again you prove you can't be honest.
I've never maintained a web page with my birthdate.
>
>KW > This implies I was involved in the
>KW > creation. Greg is well aware that I've
>KW > always maintained it was assigned by
>KW > a friend.
>
>I never accused you of organized identity fraud,
>but try that as a defense with Judge Moisan!
I have no idea who that is.
>
>You'll have to do better than these various
>red herring fakes to convince me you're
>not the famous Garage Burglar Kent
>Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8, 1969.
You've been UNABLE to prove your LIE that he is me in real life.
>
>Why would a grown ass man be "assigned"
I wasn't there when the account was made.
>a name and adopt it even to the point
Again, you can't be honest.
I didn't adopt it. You may think that if you tell a lie enough
time, magic pixies will make it truth, but it's not going to happen.
>of maintaining a birthday web page
>listing for the ""assigned"" ""fictional identity""?
Where? In reality, I mean.
>
>Why would the ""fictional identity"" and
>birthday appear on several official state
>court and corrections web sites?
They are, as far as I know, the only place the exist, outside of
the proof you've offered that you're a pathological liar.
>
>But even MORE bizarre:
>What made you think these assertions would cause
>somebody to believe you MORE rather than less?
Have you noticed how no one, except Pangborn who doesn't like to
be honest (he can do it, even intentionally, but he'd rather not) has
claimed they've bought your lies? No one.
A few people have commented that they accept my truth.
Poooooor Greg.
Well, at least you can dishonestly claim it's a witch hunt, huh?
You can feel like a victim, just like your mind wants.
--
"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
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
Greegor
G > Kent, You've used the name for how long?
[ad hom BS]
KW > the answer will be 14 years.
So how is that not adopting the name?
How long was your birthday on that web page?
Dan Sullivan
"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1c119ed7-9c97-4d91...@k8g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>KW > Greg also LIES and claims I adopted the name.
>
>G > Kent, You've used the name for how long?
>
>[ad hom BS]
How is the following an ad hom (in reality)?
"Since I got it in 1993, and it's now[1] 2008, the answer will be
14 years."
Or do you hold the delusion that my exposing your inability to do
subtraction is an ad hom?
I've exposed your serious lack of intellect many times. Suddenly
my proving you have mental retardation is an ad hom?
How do you rationalize this?
>
>KW > the answer will be 14 years.
>
>So how is that not adopting the name?
Your deceptive snipping reveals your psychological NEED to be
dishonest.
Did you adopt your name in real life and on-line? You've been
using it far longer than I've been using the nym Kent.
I suspect your parents gave/assigned you the name Gregory. Sort
of like how my friend gave/assigned me the nym Kent when he gave me
use of one of his Prodigy sub-accounts.
There are some differences, of course, which is why I used "sort
of."
>
>How long was your birthday on that web page?
To the best of my knowledge, my birthday has never been listed on
any web page. Maybe you know something I don't.
A date of birth was, and is, listed for my Brian Jones nym on the
friends site. Of course, you were proved to have been lying about
that over several months. Yet you still felt compelled to post that
which had been proved a lie.
[1] I corrected my spelling error. In doing so, I offer more proof,
if any were needed, that I shouldn't be allowed to proof-read my own
posts :-)
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott Hanson, inmate 1104135, wife and child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
Greegor
05771 FECR176876 (POLK) [Filings]
Event Filed By Filed Create Date Last Updated Action Date
ORDER FOR PROBATION REVOCATION HEARING MOISAN CYNTHIA M 12/05/2008
12/05/2008 12/05/2008
Comments: ON 1/7/09 AT 9:30AM RM204
PROBATION REVOCATION 12/05/2008 12/05/2008 12/05/2008
Comments: REPORT OF VIOLATIONS FILED BY JAN HORNOCKER
FORMAL PROBATION HUTCHISON ROBERT A 01/25/2006 01/26/2006
01/26/2006
Comments: EXTENDED TO 01/16/09 OR UNTIL CONDITIONS ARE MET
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
CLICK HERE TO REGISTER FOR NOTIFICATION ON ANY CHANGES TO THIS
OFFENDER’S CUSTODY STATUS
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://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
Iowa Courts
Online Search
< Start A Case Search Here! > click
Iowa Courts Online Search
Search Selection
Under Trial Court < click on Case Search >
Wills Kent B
02401 ESPR015146 INA J WILLS ESTATE
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT
05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT
05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRES VS KENT
05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRES VS KENT
05771 STAN201670 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 STAN210929 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
Dan Sullivan
news:3c16665e-4eea-4e1b-
bd25-89c...@v15g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 11, 12:54 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
> On Dec 11, 11:10 am, melody4u <rgc200...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 10:29 am, melody4u <rgc200...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > On Dec 6, 2:37 pm, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > > > On Dec 6, 3:06 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > What happened to the children?- >
> > > Both little girls were saftely removed from grag's reach.
> > If grag was innocent of abusing these little girls, each daughters of
> > women he had relationships with, why is he ignoring this thread?
> > The "obsessed grandmother" excuse worked so well for him the in
> > the first CPS investigation (that we know of), that he trotted it out
> > again on the second little girl. Thank God they were on to him and
> > they did not buy it a second time.
> > grag certainly DID have a history of suspected sexual abuse when he
> > was founded on the second little girl.
> > Now we find out he has a drug history as well. Is anyone surprised?
> All of the best socks say so. Right Kent?
> Like I said, your ability to lie outstrips my ability to refute.
But you didn't lie in your original post, right, grag?
> From: "Greg Hanson" <gree...@hotmail.com>
> Date: Thu, 26 Apr 2001 17:56:02 GMT
> Subject: Re: Colorado: Verdict a relief for the family
> Maybe I just perceive things oddly, but nobody here has addressed the
> twisted premise of the "re-birthing".
> Years ago I encountered an extremely obsessive grandmother who was
> mentally sick, but not on paper, (undiagnosed).
This was your first wife's mother?
Your two domestic violence convictions for abusing the mentally ill
mother, were those crimes committed in front of the children?
> She claimed that her grand daughter was "sent to her by her dead
> mother".
I doubt you actually heard her say that.
> She is one of two grandmothers I know of who were present at a childs
> birth and did a mental "flip" where they "project" themselves as the
> birth mother.
Both grandmothers "flipped" at each of their grandchildren's birth?
> In both cases, the grandmother endlessly and inappropriately second
> guessed her adult daughters parenting skills, and in both cases
> attempted to remove the child illegally.
It wasn't parenting skills that the first grandmother cited as the
reason for the removal because she left a younger child with the
mother.
The first grandmother cited you as the reason she needed to remove the
child, right, grag?
And five or six years later ANOTHER grandmother, in a totally
different situation, came to the exact same conclusion.
What did the first grandmother think you were doing to her
granddaughter, grag?
The grandmother obviously didn't think you were doing anything
inappropriate to the younger grandchild because only removed the older
granddaughter.
> One obsessor claimed rescue while leaving younger sibling behind.
> (If you're "protecting", you don't take one & leave younger behind.)
See above.
> The other obsessor is basically estranged from 5 other grandchildren
> while obsessing about the one.
But you weren't living with the other 5 children, right, grag?
This grandmother saved the one grandchild that she, her husband and
the police decided was unsafe living with you.
That's why the police initiated the removal.