Re: Why does Kent Wills refuse to archive his posts?
Greegor
KBW > not follow the Jesus of the Bible, but the
KBW > father of all lies.
KBW > How long have you been serving Satan? Serious question.
Yes, Kent, I'm sure you think that ALL of your
opponents are in league with the devil !
And we all CONSPIRE against you, too!
Isn't that just a bit too CONVENIENT and easy for you?
On Dec 31 2009, 9:03 pm, yumhuyk <wostyn...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Is he afraid of someone using his USENET postings against him? Like
> his parole officer?
>
> yours in Christ,
> isamu
He posted a video of a speed boat he claimed was his.
The boat registration was clearly visible and didn't check out.
He posted a video of a Pool house and a plaque which said
Wills but carefully avoided taping the first name on the plaque.
His photobucket site has a photo of another speed boat
referred to as one of their boats.
It also has THREE photos of his BMW sedan.
He edited out the license plates.
It could be his Dad's BMW.
http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc127/kwills_photo/
Kent's parents are so worried about him blowing
the family inheritance on magic beans that they
had to put most of it into a protective trust.
Kent once posted that all of his "stuff" like
boats, cars, and a little plane are all property
of the family "corporation" for tax purposes.
It was only a little fib.
Notice that his Mother (bottom training document)
is some kind of professional money manager who
would probably have reason to know about protective trusts.
Kent once posted comments when his sister Tiffany got married.
Kent claimed that HE sold the apartment building
at 202 NW College Ave but the public records
showed a slightly different sale price and show
Seller: WILLS, FRED A. & JANET R.
Buyer: THE SWEENEY REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST
in 1994, but then 1999 records show that Kent
himself had to be sued for RENT by SWEENEY.
Kent once claimed that he deliberately set
up "bread crumbs" to mislead a racist stalker.
(Like his birthday page?)
Kent once claimed that one of his buddies
""assigned"" him the name.
Kent also once claimed that one of his buddies
faked up the records on the courts web site
just to poke fun at him or something.
The fact that his stuff appears on THREE
different official state records web sites
and the official printed caselaw books didn't
slow him down for awhile.
Kent and Moe actually tried to sell the story
that the online state court, state supreme court
and state corrections records were all faked.
He had Moe arguing that line with him for
a long time, but it gradually faded and
they replaced their argument into saying that
he isn't Kent Bradley Wills at all.
If it wasn't him then why claim the records were doctored?
Kent Web Mastered a really old BIRTHDAY web page
and listed his own birthday as January 8th.
A mysterious new web master mysteriously
removed Kent's listing and Kent crowed.
If you look at public records showing past
cities that Kent, his sister or his parents lived at,
and compare them with what Kent has
posted, the matches are amazing.
Then there's the logic and style comparison.
In the IA Supreme Court ruling you can see that
his appeal was SO stupid that you'd think the
attorney would be disbarred for even filing it!
The garage burglar quibbled about the fact they
got a harsher sentence for robbing an attached
garage, any attorney should have known that
is expressly spelled out in black letter law!
"Our" Kent argues the unarguable constantly.
One of my earliest recollections about Kent
is that I joked that he would argue for gasoline
in a fire extinguisher.
Kent then proved my comment to be absolutely
true by arguing that liquid gasoline does not burn.
How is that NOT the guy who argued about
an attached garage not being a residence?
Kent tells LIES and half truths so profusely that
it seems whatever truth he tells is just a SETUP
for another lie.
Yes, Kent knows very well that an archive of
his posts often bites him in the posterior.
Kent Bradley Wills AKA Compuelf DOB Jan 8 1969 Two Felony Garage
Burglar used teen as accomplice
Kent routinely says opponents are
A. Drunks
B. Druggies
C. Mentally Ill
D. Already conceded to Kent's argument
E. Question was already asked and answered ( ? )
It's as if Kent is an automation that is WAY too simple.
Kent's Appeal
IN PRINTED LAW BOOKS
West's North Western Reporter
Second Series
A Unit of the National Reporter System
Volume 696 N.W.2d
Cite as 696 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 2005)
Kent's Appeal
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
http://www.assess.co.polk.ia.us/cgi-bin/seephoto/photosize.cgi?gp=802415452029&size=Large
Notice that KENT made claims re sale of 202 NW College apartment
building
That's geoparcel gp=802415452029
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
( Step by step instructions elsewhere with name Kent B Wills )
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
http://www.rogersgis.com/zoom/Residential_Development/indexfull.htm
http://www.arcountydata.com/county.asp?county=Benton
TWO of Kent Wills' usenet newsgroup identities:
Do It Yourself Instructions to look up Kent's record
Iowa Department of Corrections records for Kent
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
Name Kent Bradley Wills [ As Collected Sept 13, 2009 ]
Offender Number 1155768
Sex M
Birth Date 01/08/1969
Age 40
Location
Offense
County Of Commitment
Commitment Date
Duration
TDD/SDD *
* TDD = Tentative Discharge Date
* SDD = Supervision Discharge Date
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 12/16/2008
Probation C Felony Polk 12/16/2008
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 11/25/2003
IN PRINTED LAW BOOKS
West's North Western Reporter
Second Series
A Unit of the National Reporter System
Volume 696 N.W.2d
Cite as 696 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 2005)
Kent's Appeal
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 31 / 04-0202
Filed May 6, 2005
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
KENT BRADLEY WILLS,
Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk
County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.
Defendant appeals claiming ineffective
assistance of counsel. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender,
and Tricia Johnston, Assistant State
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin
Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, John P.
Sarcone, County Attorney, and John Judisch,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
WIGGINS, Justice.
Kent Wills appeals his conviction for
second-degree burglary contending that
an attached garage is a separate occupied
structure from that of the living quarters
of the residence. In this appeal, we must
determine whether trial counsel was
ineffective for (1) failing to move for
judgment of acquittal on the basis there
was insufficient evidence to convict Wills
of second-degree burglary when he entered
an attached garage of a residence when no
persons were present in the garage, but
when persons were present in the living
quarters; and (2) failing to object to a
jury instruction based on this same
argument. Because we find there was no
legal basis for the motion for judgment
of acquittal or the objection to the jury
instruction, Wills' trial counsel was not
ineffective. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Around 1 a.m., an Ankeny resident called
the local police to report that a car
alarm sounded in the resident's
neighborhood. The city dispatched a police
officer to the location. Observing nothing
unusual, the officer left the area, only
to be stopped a couple of blocks later
by a person who informed the officer he
had witnessed someone running from the
area of the car alarm. As the officer
started driving back to the area of the
car alarm, he noticed a person walking
on the sidewalk. The officer asked the
person, a minor, if he had noticed anybody
running from the area. The minor answered
that he had not. While the officer and
another officer were speaking to the minor,
another resident of the neighborhood
arrived in her car and informed the
officers that she had observed two people,
one of whom was heavy set with a blinking
light on his back pocket, walking in the
area of her neighbor's residence. She
observed the heavier-set individual, later
identified as Wills, enter her neighbor's
attached garage through an unlocked service
door. She further observed a smaller
individual standing by a van parked in
the neighbor's driveway.
The officers eventually let the minor leave
even though they found a large amount of
coins, a flashlight, and an electronic
pocket organizer in his pockets. After
releasing the minor, the police officers
drove to the residence where the neighbor
observed the two suspicious people and
woke the owner. The owner, his wife,
and two daughters were in the residence
sleeping at the time. After a search
of his vehicles, the owner discovered
change and an electronic pocket organizer
were missing from the vehicles. The
owner's daughter reported a diamond ring
and some change were missing from her
vehicle. The officers then contacted
the minor's parents, who informed the
officers the minor was with Wills. After
the officers questioned the minor again,
he admitted his involvement in the theft
and implicated Wills in the burglary.
Although Wills denied involvement in the
burglary, the officers arrested him.
The State filed a trial information
charging Wills with second-degree
burglary. The State later amended the
information to include two additional
charges of burglary in the third degree
and using a juvenile to commit an
indictable offense.
The jury returned a verdict finding Wills
guilty of the crimes of burglary in the
second degree, burglary in the third
degree, and using a juvenile to commit
an indictable offense. Wills appeals his
conviction for second-degree burglary
claiming ineffective assistance of
counsel.
II. Scope of Review.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
are derived from the Sixth Amendment of the
United States Constitution. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-86, 104 S.
Ct. 2052, 2063-64, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 691-93
(1984). Our review for a claim involving
violations of the Constitution is de novo.
State v. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d 95, 100
(Iowa 2004). We normally preserve
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
for postconviction relief actions. State
v. Carter, 602 N.W. 2d 818, 820 (Iowa 1999).
However, we will address such claims on
direct appeal when the record is sufficient
to permit a ruling. State v. Artzer,
609 N.W.2d 526, 531 (Iowa 2000). The
appellate record in the present case is
sufficient to allow us to address Wills'
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
on direct appeal.
In order for a defendant to succeed on a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
the defendant must prove: (1) counsel
failed to perform an essential duty and
(2) prejudice resulted. Id. Prejudice
results when "there is a reasonable
probability that, but for the counsel's
unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different."
State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 378
(Iowa 1998) (quoting Strickland, 466
U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068,
80 L. Ed. 2d at 698). Wills' arguments
also raise issues of statutory
interpretation, which we review for
correction of errors at law. State v.
Wolford Corp., 689 N.W.2d 471, 473 (Iowa 2004).
III. Analysis.
To find Wills guilty of burglary in the
second degree, the State had to prove
Wills perpetrated a burglary "in or
upon an occupied structure in which one
or more persons are present . . . ." Iowa
Code § 713.5(2) (2003) (emphasis added).
In this appeal, Wills first contends his
trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to move for a judgment of acquittal on
the basis there was insufficient evidence
to support a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage, there were persons
present in or upon the occupied structure.
Wills concedes the garage was an occupied
structure, but argues the living quarters
and the attached garage are separate and
independent occupied structures; therefore,
the jury could not have found there were
people present in the attached garage
at the time of the burglary.
The Code defines an "occupied structure" as:
[A]ny building, structure, appurtenances
to buildings and structures, land, water
or air vehicle, or similar place adapted
for overnight accommodation of persons,
or occupied by persons for the purpose of
carrying on business or other activity
therein, or for the storage or safekeeping
of anything of value. Such a structure
is an "occupied structure" whether or not
a person is actually present.
Id. § 702.12.
Wills relies on State v. Smothers, 590
N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 1999), to argue the
garage and the living quarters are separate
and independent occupied structures. In
Smothers, two separate and distinct
businesses connected by interior fire doors
were operated in the same structure.
590 N.W.2d at 723. We held the defendant
committed two burglaries by entering each
business because "[t]he facility's
construction history and physical make-up
demonstrate that the portions are
independent working units which constitute
'[a] combination of materials to form a
construction for occupancy [or] use.'" Id.
Smothers is not at odds with the present
case because the living quarters and the
garage are not separate or independent
units of the residence.
Our review of the record reveals the garage
in question was a three-car attached garage
separated from the living quarters by a
door. The same roof covered the garage as
the rest of the residence. The living
quarters surrounded the garage on two sides.
It was structurally no different from any
other room in the residence.
The garage was a functional part of the
residence. On the night of the incident,
the door was unlocked. The owner of the
residence used two stalls in the garage to
park the family vehicles. The owner used
the third stall for his motorcycle. As
such, the garage and the living quarters
are a single "structure" or "building"
functioning as an integral part of the
family residence. Thus, the residence
including the garage is a single
"occupied structure" under section 702.12.
See, e.g., People v. Ingram, 48 Cal. Rptr.
2d 256 (Ct. App.1995) (holding defendant's
entry into an attached garage constituted
first-degree burglary because the garage
was attached to the house; therefore,
burglary of the garage was burglary of
an inhabited dwelling house); People v.
Cunningham, 637 N.E.2d 1247, 1252 (Ill.
App. Ct. 1994) (holding "ordinarily an
attached garage is a 'dwelling' because
it is part of the structure in which
the owner or occupant lives");
State v. Lara, 587 P.2d 52, 53
(N.M. Ct. App. 1978) (holding "burglary
of the [attached] garage was burglary of
the dwelling house because the garage was
a part of the structure used as living
quarters"); People v. Green, 141 A.D.2d
760, 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) (holding
"[s]ince the garage in the present case
was structurally part of a building
which was used for overnight lodging of
various persons, it must be considered
as part of a dwelling"); White v. State,
630 S.W. 2d 340, 342 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982)
(holding an attached garage under the
same roof as the home would be considered
a habitation within the purview of the
penal code because the garage is a
structure appurtenant to and connected
to the house); State v. Murbach, 843 P.
2d 551, 553 (Wash. Ct. App 1993)
(holding the definition of a dwelling
under Washington's burglary statute
included an attached garage).
Had Wills' trial counsel moved for a
judgment of acquittal on the basis there
was insufficient evidence to support
a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage there were no persons
present in or upon the occupied
structure, it would have been overruled
by the court because the owner and his
family were present in the residence at
the time of the burglary.
Wills also claims his counsel was
ineffective for failing to object to
the jury instruction used by the district
court on the same ground; that the
living quarters were a separate and
independent occupied structure from the
attached garage. The instruction as
given stated:
The State must prove all of the following
elements of Burglary in the Second
Degree as to Count I:
1. On or about the 12th day of August,
2003, the defendant or someone he aided
and abetted broke into or entered the
residence at . . . .
2. The residence at . . . was an occupied
structure as defined in Instruction No. 29.
3. The defendant or the person he aided
and abetted did not have permission or
authority to break into the residence at ...
4. The defendant or the person he aided
and abetted did so with the specific
intent to commit a theft therein.
5. During the incident persons were present
in or upon the occupied structure.
If the State has proved all of the elements,
the defendant is guilty of Burglary in the
Second Degree. If the State has failed to prove
any of the elements, the defendant is not
guilty of Burglary in the Second Degree and
you will then consider the charge of
Attempted Burglary in the Second Degree
explained in Instruction No. 21.
(Emphasis added.)
Wills' claim is without merit. As we have
discussed, the residence is the one and
only "occupied structure" under the facts
of this case. Had Wills' trial counsel
made this objection to the instruction,
it would have been overruled.
Therefore, Wills' trial counsel is not
ineffective for failing to move
for a judgment of acquittal or objecting
to the instruction because there was no
legal basis for the motion or objection.
See State v. Hochmuth, 585 N.W.2d 234,
238 (Iowa 1998) (holding trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise an
issue that has no merit).
IV. Disposition.
We affirm the judgment of the district
court because Wills' trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise
meritless issues.
AFFIRMED.
---------------------------------
Pay close attention to past owners of 202 NW College Ave.
Kent made affirmative claims about the property online.
Kent's folks sold it in 1994 while Kent lived there!
On 03/30/1999 Sweeney's filed on Kent for UNPAID RENT!
GeoParcel 8024-15-452-029 District/Parcel 181/00392-048-000
[ As Collected Sept 13, 2009 ]
Seller: WILLS, FRED A. & JANET R.
Buyer: THE SWEENEY REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST
04/26/1994 135,000 D/Deed 7010/188
-
Seller: SHELDAHL, ERIC A.
Buyer: WILLS, FRED
01/02/1990 130,500 D/Deed 6189/972
A Larger photo:
http://www.assess.co.polk.ia.us/cgi-bin/seephoto/photosize.cgi?gp=802415452029&size=Large
Notice that name SWEENEY above?
Check this out!
Iowa Courts Docket and Disposition web site
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
Iowa Courts
Online Search
< Start A Case Search Here! > click
Iowa Courts Online Search
Search Selection
Under Trial Court < click on Case Search >
Wills Kent B
02401 ESPR015146 INA J WILLS ESTATE
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT ******
05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT
05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRES VS KENT
05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRES VS KENT
05771 STAN201670 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 STAN210929 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
A list of case numbers will be presented.
Click on the SWEENEY case, 4th one down.
Under the "Filings" tab:
JUDGEMENT DEFAULT BRANDT GREGORY D 08/25/1999 09/01/1999 09/01/1999
Comments: $156.25 7.244% FROM 03/30/99
COMPUTER GENERATED NOTICE 05/11/1999 05/11/1999 05/11/1999
Comments: Notice of Proof of Claim
RETURN OF ORIGINAL NOTICE 04/21/1999 04/23/1999 04/23/1999
Comments: 4/10/99 KENT PERS
37.60
VERIFICATION OF ACCT HAS BEEN FILED 03/30/1999 03/30/1999
03/30/1999
SMALL CLAIMS ORIGINAL NOTICE SWEENEY RENTALS 03/30/1999 03/30/1999
03/30/1999
Comments: UNPAID RENT
Under the "Financial" Tab:
Summary Orig Paid Due
COSTS 98.60 31.00 67.60
FINE 0.00 0.00 0.00
SURCHARGE 0.00 0.00 0.00
RESTITUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00
OTHER 238.46 0.00 238.46
-----------
$337.06 $31.00 $306.06
SUPPORT/ALIMONY N/A 0.00 N/A
----------------------------------------
Kent's 2000 Felony, first of TWO in Iowa
WILLS, KENT BRADLEY 05771 FECR145250 (POLK)
01/24/2000 Offense Date THEFT 2ND DEGREE - 1978 (FELD) WITHDRAWN
01/24/2000 Offense Date THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
03/07/2000 DEFERRED JUDGMENT (At that time) Sentence: 365 Day(s)
03/07/2000 PROBATION INFORMAL; 8/07/01-TRNFRD TO FORMAL 365 Day(s)
03/07/2000 COMMUNITY SERVICE 50 Hour(s)
03/07/2000 REFERRED TO OTHER AGENCY 1ST TIME OFFENDER CLASS
08/07/2001 JAIL PROB HRG 11 Day(s)
08/07/2001 JAIL PROB HRG 11 Day(s) TIME SERVED
08/07/2001 PROBATION EXTENDED PROB HRG
04/16/2002 PROBATION EXTENDED TO 08/06/03
04/16/2002 IMPOSED 7 Day(s)
04/16/2002 OTHER/MISCELLANEOUS PROB HRG 6 Day(s)
04/16/2002 DETENTION PROB HRG 6 Day(s)
08/07/2003 PRIOR ORDERS CONTINUED PROB EXTENDED UNTIL 8-06-04
11/26/2003 REVOKED PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL
11/26/2003 PLACEMENT HRG PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL120 Day(s)
11/26/2003 SUSPEND PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; TIME SERVED 106 Day(s)
11/26/2003 COMMUNITY CORR PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL 14 Day(s)
( When Kent's second Felony revoked the rest of his Probation.)
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
Iowa Courts
Online Search
< Start A Case Search Here! > click
Iowa Courts Online Search
Search Selection
Under Trial Court < click on Case Search >
Wills Kent B
02401 ESPR015146 INA J WILLS ESTATE
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT ******
05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT
05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRES VS KENT
05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRES VS KENT
05771 STAN201670 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 STAN210929 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
A list of case numbers will be presented.
Click on case FECR145250, 2nd one down.
Under the "[Criminal Charges/Disposition]" tab:
Charges, Dispositions, Sentences
Title: STATE VS KENT B WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR145250 (POLK)
Citation Number:
Defendant: WILLS, KENT BRADLEY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 01 Charge
Charge:
714.2(2) Description: THEFT 2ND DEGREE - 1978 (FELD)
Offense Date: 01/24/2000 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0386367-01
Adjudication
Charge:
714.2(2) Description: THEFT 2ND DEGREE - 1978 (FELD)
Adj.:
DNU-WITHDRAWN Adj.Date: 03/07/2000
Adj.Judge:
WILSON, ROBERT D
Comments: AMENDED TI FILED
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(2) Description: THEFT 2ND DEGREE - 1978 (FELD)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: WITHDRAWN
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 02 Charge
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Offense Date: 01/24/2000 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0386367-02
Adjudication
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Adj.:
DEFERRED Adj.Date: 03/07/2000
Adj.Judge:
WILSON, ROBERT D
Comments:
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: DEFERRED JUDGMENT
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 365 Day(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 365 Day(s)
Comment:
INFORMAL;8/07/01-TRNFRD TO FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 50 Hour(s)
Comment:
TO BE DETERMINED BY PROBATION
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: REFERRED TO OTHER AGENCY
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
1ST TIME OFFENDER CLASS
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
08/07/2001 Sentence: JAIL
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: JACOBS, LOUISE M
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 11 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
08/07/2001 Sentence: TIME SERVED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: JACOBS, LOUISE M
Facility Type:
J Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 11 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
08/07/2001 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: JACOBS, LOUISE M
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROB HRG-4/16/02-PROBATION EXTENDED TO 08/06/03
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
04/16/2002 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: COPPOLA, CAROL L
Facility Type:
J Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 7 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
04/16/2002 Sentence: OTHER/MISCELLANEOUS
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: COPPOLA, CAROL L
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 6 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
04/16/2002 Sentence: DETENTION
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: COPPOLA, CAROL L
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 6 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
08/07/2003 Sentence: PRIOR ORDERS CONTINUED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: MCGHEE, ODELL
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROB EXTENDED UNTIL 8-06-04
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
11/26/2003 Sentence: REVOKED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: SMITH, JOE E
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
11/26/2003 Sentence: PLACEMENT
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: SMITH, JOE E
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 120 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
11/26/2003 Sentence: SUSPEND
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: SMITH, JOE E
Facility Type:
J Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 106 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; TIME SERVED
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
11/26/2003 Sentence: COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: SMITH, JOE E
Facility Type:
J Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 14 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL
---------------------------------------
Charges, Dispositions, Sentences
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
Citation Number:
Count 01
08/12/2003 Offense Date BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
12/17/2003 Adj.Date: GUILTY
01/16/2004 Sentence 10 Year(s) SUSPENDED PRISON
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION 2 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FT DSM FACILITY-MAX
BENEFITS
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE 150 Hour(s)
12/17/2003 Sentence: JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
Count 02
08/12/2003 Offense BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR VEHICLE
(AGMS)
12/17/2003 GUILTY
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON Duration: 2 Year(s) SUSPENDED PRISON
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION Duration: 2 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FT DSM FACILITY-MAX
BENEFITS
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE Duration: 150 Hour(s)
12/17/2003 Sentence: JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/06/09
Count 03
08/12/2003 USING JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE OFFENSE(FELC)709A.6
(2)
12/17/2003 GUILTY
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON Duration: 10 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON 10 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION 2 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FT DSM FACILITY-MAX
BENEFITS
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE 150 Hour(s)
12/17/2003 Sentence: JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
Charges, Dispositions, Sentences
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
Citation Number:
Count 01 Charge
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Offense Date: 08/12/2003 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0668408-01
Adjudication
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Adj.:
DNU-GUILTY Adj.Date: 12/17/2003
Adj.Judge:
HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Comments: GUILTY
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 150 Hour(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
12/17/2003 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 02 Charge
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Offense Date: 08/12/2003 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0668408-02
Adjudication
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Adj.:
DNU-GUILTY Adj.Date: 12/17/2003
Adj.Judge:
HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Comments: GUILTY
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 150 Hour(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
12/17/2003 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/06/09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 03 Charge
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Offense Date: 08/12/2003 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0668408-03
Adjudication
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Adj.:
DNU-GUILTY Adj.Date: 12/17/2003
Adj.Judge:
HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Comments: GUILTY
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 150 Hour(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
12/17/2003 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
-------------------------------------
Filings
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
ORDER OF DISCHARGE OVROM ELIZA 12/16/2008 12/16/2008 12/16/2008
Comments: FROM PROBATION
OTHER EVENT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 12/16/2008 12/16/2008
12/16/2008
Comments: FIELD DISCHARGE REPORT
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 12/16/2008 12/16/2008 12/16/2008
Comments: REVOCATION HEARING SET FOR 1/07/2009 IS CANCELLED
DEFENDANT HAS NOT PAID IN FULL FINANCIAL
OBLIGATIONS
ORDER FOR PROBATION REVOCATION HEARING MOISAN CYNTHIA M 12/05/2008
12/05/2008 12/05/2008
Comments: ON 1/7/09 AT 9:30AM RM204
PROBATION REVOCATION 12/05/2008 12/05/2008 12/05/2008
Comments: REPORT OF VIOLATIONS FILED BY JAN HORNOCKER
FORMAL PROBATION HUTCHISON ROBERT A 01/25/2006 01/26/2006
01/26/2006
Comments: EXTENDED TO 01/16/09 OR UNTIL CONDITIONS ARE MET
COURT ORDERED PAYMENT PLAN 01/13/2006 01/13/2006 01/13/2006
OTHER ORDER HUTCHISON ROBERT A 01/11/2006 01/13/2006 01/13/2006
Comments: DEFT'S PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09; DEFT TO
COMPLETE
CONDITIONS LISTED
OTHER EVENT 09/15/2005 09/15/2005 09/15/2005
Comments: THE SUPREME COURT RETURNED FILE, PSI, 4 TRANSCRIPTS,
AND 1 ENVELOPE OF EXHIBITS
OTHER EVENT APPELLATE DEFENDER'S OFFICE 06/09/2005 06/13/2005
06/13/2005
Comments: STATEMENT OF HOURS
15.9 HOURS = $795.00
ATTORNEY - GRETA TRUMAN
OTHER EVENT CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 06/02/2005 09/15/2005
09/15/2005
Comments: BILL OF COSTS
$27.50 TAXED AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND PAYABLE
TO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
#04-0202
OTHER ORDER SUPREME COURT OF IOWA 06/02/2005 09/15/2005 09/15/2005
Comments: RE DEFT'S APPEAL CLAIMING INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL:
JUDGEMENT AFFIRMED
#04-0202
PROCEDENDO CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 06/02/2005 09/15/2005 09/15/2005
Comments: AFFIRMED
PROCEED W/DILIGENCE AS IF THERE HAD BEEN NO
APPEAL
#04-0202
COMMUNITY SERVICE 05/25/2004 05/27/2004 05/27/2004
Comments: 135 HRS COMPLETED 5/24/04
INDIGENT DEFENSE CLAIM FORM TAYLOR KAREN 05/11/2004 05/13/2004
05/13/2004
Comments: $1150
ELECTRONIC FILING
OTHER EVENT 04/26/2004 04/28/2004 04/28/2004
Comments: SUPREME COURT REC'D 1 FILE, 1 PSI ENVELOPE,
1 EXHIBIT(1 ENVELOPE DATED 1/21/04)
REC'D 4/20/04
OTHER ORDER NICKERSON DON 04/23/2004 04/27/2004 04/27/2004
Comments: THE BALANCE OF ATTNY FEE AND CC SHALL BE
CONVERTED TO 135 HRS COMM SERVICE
TO BE COMPLETED FROM FT DSM FACILITY
OR TRANSFER TO INTERSTATE COMPACT
COMMUNITY SERVICE 04/22/2004 04/23/2004 04/23/2004
Comments: 150 HRS COMPLETED
APRIL 8, 2004
OTHER EVENT 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004
Comments: RECD CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR DEFT
OTHER EVENT 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004
Comments: FILE AND PSI SENT TO THE SUPREME COURT
ONE ENVELOPE OF EXHIBITS FILED 1/21/04
SENT TO THE SUPREME COURT
OTHER EVENT 04/19/2004 04/19/2004 04/19/2004
Comments: SUP CRT RECEIVED 2 TRANSCRIPTS OF PROCEEDINGS
FILED 4/1/04 (VOL I & II)
SUP CRT 04-202
OTHER EVENT 04/06/2004 05/18/2004 05/18/2004
Comments: 2 TRANSCRIPTS FILED 4/1/04 SENT TO THE
SUPREME COURT
DNU - COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT MAXEY REBECCA 04/01/2004 04/05/2004
04/05/2004
Comments: OF PROCEEDINGS ON 12/16/03
VOLUME II
DNU - COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT MAXEY REBECCA 04/01/2004 04/05/2004
04/05/2004
Comments: OF PROCEEDINGS ON 12/15/03
VOLUME I
OTHER EVENT 03/31/2004 03/31/2004 03/31/2004
Comments: EXHIBITS RETURNED
OTHER EVENT 03/31/2004 03/31/2004 03/31/2004
Comments: ENVELOPE OF EXHIBITS CHECKED OUT TO COURT
REPORTER R.M.
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 03/29/2004 03/31/2004 03/31/2004
Comments: MOTION IS GRANTED REGARDING REVIEW OF
PAYMENT OF COURT APPOINTED ATTY FEES AND
THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER IS ORDERED TO MAKE
PAYMENT AS REQUESTED.
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 03/29/2004 03/30/2004 03/31/2004
ENTERED IN ERROR
Comments: STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER SHALL MAKE PAYMENT AS
REQUESTED.
MOTION 03/18/2004 03/19/2004 03/19/2004
Comments: TO ENLARGE TIME FOR DOCKETING FILED BY
ASSISTANT APPELLATE DEFENDER
ORDER SETTING HEARING OVROM ELIZA 03/15/2004 03/16/2004 03/16/2004
Comments: ON MOTION TO REVIEW ACTION RE:PAYMENT OF
COURT APPOINTED ATTY.
3/29/04 8:15AM RM209A
MOTION 03/15/2004 03/16/2004 03/16/2004
Comments: FOR REVIEW OF ACTION REGARDING PAYMENT
OF COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY FEES
FILED BY ATDF
OTHER EVENT 03/11/2004 03/11/2004 03/11/2004
Comments: SUPREME COURT RECVD 2 TRANSCRIPTS OF SENTENCING
ON 1/16/04 AND STATUS CONF ON 12/12/03 FILED
3/1/04
04-202
OTHER EVENT 03/09/2004 03/09/2004 03/09/2004
Comments: 2 TRANSCRIPTS FILED 3/1/04 SENT TO THE
SUPREME COURT
INDIGENT DEFENSE CLAIM FORM TAYLOR KAREN 03/09/2004 03/18/2004
03/18/2004
Comments: $1350.00 ELECTRONIC FILING
DNU - COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT HILGENBERG VIVIAN ROSE 03/01/2004
03/03/2004 03/03/2004
Comments: OF STATUS CONFERENCE ON 12/12/2003
DNU - COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT HILGENBERG VIVIAN ROSE 03/01/2004
03/03/2004 03/03/2004
Comments: OF SENTENCING ON 01/16/2004
OTHER EVENT APPELLATE DEFENDER'S OFFICE 02/26/2004 02/27/2004
02/27/2004
Comments: COMBINED CERTIFICATE
OTHER EVENT 02/24/2004 02/24/2004 02/24/2004
Comments: DOCKET ENTRIES RECEIVED BY SUPREME COURT
2-10-04; SUPREME COURT NUMBER 04-202
ORDER APPOINTING OVROM ELIZA 02/18/2004 02/19/2004 02/19/2004
Comments: ORDER GRANTING K TAYLOR TO W/D
APPELLATE COUNSEL IS APPT
OTHER APPLICATION 02/18/2004 02/19/2004 02/19/2004
Comments: TO WITHDRAW
OTHER EVENT 02/10/2004 02/10/2004 02/10/2004
Comments: DOCKET ENTRIES AND CERTIFIED COPY OF NOTICE
OF APPEAL SENT TO THE SUPREME COURT
OTHER EVENT TAYLOR KAREN A 02/09/2004 02/10/2004 02/10/2004
Comments: COURT APPOINTED BILLING
47 HOURS = $2500
OTHER EVENT TAYLOR KAREN 02/09/2004 02/10/2004 02/10/2004
ENTERED IN ERROR
Comments: COURT
NOTICE OF APPEAL TAYLOR KAREN A 02/06/2004 02/09/2004 02/09/2004
Comments: FILED BY ATDF
OTHER EVENT 01/23/2004 01/27/2004 01/27/2004
Comments: ADDENDUM TO PSI REPORT
EXHIBIT MAXEY REBECCA 01/21/2004 01/21/2004 01/21/2004
Comments: STATE'S EXHIBITS
1-$13.21; 2-$24.25 (IN VAULT); 3-LIGHT;
4&5-WRITTEN STATEMENT; 6,7,8-DIAGRAM
1 ENVELOPE & VAULT
OTHER EVENT 01/20/2004 01/26/2004 01/26/2004
Comments: VORP
VICTIM DOES NOT WANT TO VORP
NO RESTITUTION ISSUES AT THIS TIME
VICTIM DENNIS AND JAMIE WIEBEN
COURT ORDERED PAYMENT PLAN 01/20/2004 01/20/2004 01/20/2004
COURT ORDERED PAYMENT PLAN 01/16/2004 01/16/2004 01/16/2004
COURT REPORTER CERTIFICATE HILGENBERG VIVIAN ROSE 01/16/2004
01/20/2004 01/20/2004
Comments: $15.00
PRE SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT PSI 01/16/2004 01/16/2004
01/16/2004
ORDER OF DISPOSITION OVROM ELIZA 01/16/2004 01/16/2004 01/16/2004
Comments: FOUND GUILTY BY JURY/PRISON-SUSPENDED; FORMAL
PROBATION; FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS;
COMMUNITY SERVED; RESTITUTION-SUPP ORDER TO
FOLLOW; VORP; APPEAL BOND $13000 C/S
ORDER OF DISPOSITION OVROM ELIZA 01/16/2004 01/16/2004
01/16/2004
ENTERED IN ERROR
Comments: PLED GUILTY/PRISON-SUSPENDED; FORMAL
PROBATION; FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS;
COMMUNITY SERVED; RESTITUTION-SUPP ORDER TO
FOLLOW; VORP; APPEAL BOND $13000 C/S
MITTIMUS TO STATE INSTITUTION WILLS KENT BRADLEY 01/16/2004
01/16/2004 01/16/2004
Comments: **FORT DES MOINES**
RETURN OF SERVICE - OTHER POLK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 12/23/2003
12/26/2003 12/26/2003
Comments: TRANSPORT COSTS $96.24
OTHER EVENT 12/22/2003 12/23/2003 12/23/2003
Comments: DEFT'S COPY OF ORDER TO EXCEED STATE FEE
LIMITATION RETURNED UNDELIVERABLE
COURT REPORTER CERTIFICATE MAXEY REBECCA 12/17/2003 12/18/2003
12/18/2003
CRIMINAL VERDICT HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/17/2003 12/18/2003 12/18/2003
Comments: OF GUILTY TO BURGLARY 2ND, 3RD, AND USING A
JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE OFFENSE; DCS
WILL SUBMIT A PSI BY 1 WK PRIOR TO SENTENCING
DATE; PRESENTENCE CONF & SENTENCING 1-16-04
@ 8:30 AM IN RM 209A; BOND CONT
AMENDED TRIAL INFORMATION HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/17/2003 12/18/2003
12/18/2003
Comments: FILED BY JOHN JUDISCH
JURY SELECTION HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/17/2003 12/18/2003 12/18/2003
INSTRUCTIONS 12/17/2003 12/18/2003 12/18/2003
Comments: TO THE JURY AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE
OTHER ORDER HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/16/2003 12/17/2003 12/17/2003
Comments: JUV SEAN BILYEU SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE
CUSTODY OF POLK CO SHERIFF FOR THE DURATION
OF HIS REQUIRED TESTIMONY/PRESENCE IN THIS
MATTER. SEAN BILYEU SHALL REMAIN IN THE
CUSTODY OF POLK CO SHERIFF OR ANY OTHER
LOCATION (MEYER HALL) DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY
THE SHERIFF UNTIL THE POLK CO SHERIFF CAN
EXECUTE THE TIMELY TRANSPORT OF SEAN BILYEU
FROM THE CUSTODY OF THE SHERIFF TO THE ELDORA
TRAINING CENTER.
OTHER ORDER HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/16/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003
Comments: DEFT TO BE RETURNED FROM ELDORA-COTTAGE 5
BY JIM TROTTER, INVESTIGATOR/CTY ATTY'S
OFFICE; DEFT CAN BE PRESENT AT HIS TESTIMONY
ON 12-16-03
OTHER ORDER HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/15/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003
Comments: ATDF IS PERMITTED TO EXCEED GUIDELINE FOR
CT APPT ATTY IN THIS MATTER AND THAT THIS
ORDER SHALL INCLUED ALL FEES INCURRED AS OF
THE DATE OF THIS ORDER.
APPLICATION TO EXCEED FEES 12/15/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003
COURT REPORTER CERTIFICATE HILGENBERG VIVIAN ROSE 12/12/2003
12/17/2003 12/17/2003
MOTION IN LIMINE TAYLOR KAREN 12/12/2003 12/15/2003 12/15/2003
ORDER SETTING HEARING OVROM ELIZA 12/05/2003 12/08/2003 12/08/2003
Comments: STATUS CONF: 12/12/03 @ 10:00 AM RM 204
RETURN OF SERVICE ON SUBPEONA 11/20/2003 12/09/2003 12/09/2003
Comments: 4=$0
RETURN OF SERVICE ON SUBPEONA 11/18/2003 11/25/2003 11/25/2003
Comments: 3=$0
ORDER SETTING HEARING OVROM ELIZA 11/14/2003 11/14/2003 11/14/2003
Comments: STATUS CONFERENCE
11/13/03 9AM RM 204
ALL PARTIES MUST BE PRESENT
ORDER SETTING TRIAL OVROM ELIZA 11/13/2003 11/14/2003 11/14/2003
Comments: 12/15/03 @ 9:00 AM RM 204
WAIVER OF SPEEDY TRIAL TAYLOR KAREN 11/13/2003 11/14/2003
11/14/2003
Comments: LIMITED
RETURN OF SERVICE ON SUBPEONA 11/10/2003 11/12/2003 11/12/2003
Comments: 1 = $0
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF DAVID DUVALL
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF BETH ANN SKOGEN
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF NEIL LEMKE
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF DENNIS WIEBEN
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF NATALIE BALUKOFF
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF SEAN BILYEU
RETURN OF SERVICE ON SUBPEONA 10/31/2003 11/04/2003 11/04/2003
Comments: 6=$0
AMENDED TRIAL INFORMATION OVROM ELIZA 10/31/2003 11/03/2003
11/03/2003
Comments: FILED BY JOHN JUDISCH
NOTICE WARD JAMES P 10/31/2003 11/03/2003 11/03/2003
Comments: OF ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
DNU - SUBPOENA PER DUCES TECUM 10/31/2003 11/03/2003 11/03/2003
Comments: 1 - $13.70
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: FOR DEPOSITIONS AND SERVICE
AT STATE EXPENSE
OTHER APPLICATION 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: FOR DEPOSITIONS AND SERVICE
AT STATE EXPENSE
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITION
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 10/07/2003 10/08/2003 10/08/2003
Comments: ORDER ENTERED 9/18/03 SETTING TRIAL FOR
11/19/03 WAS IS ERROR. TRIAL IS RESET FOR
11/12/03 @9:00 AM RM 204
OTHER EVENT 09/24/2003 09/26/2003 09/26/2003
Comments: DEFT'S COPY OF APP TO W/D
RETURNED UNDELIVERABLE
PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE OVROM ELIZA 09/18/2003 09/19/2003 09/19/2003
Comments: WAS HELD; TRIAL ON 11-19-03
ATDF TAYLOR
OTHER EVENT AMUNDSON LAURA K 08/26/2003 09/02/2003 09/02/2003
Comments: STATEMENT OF HOURS
.4-$18.00
APPEARANCE TAYLOR KAREN 08/25/2003 08/26/2003 08/26/2003
Comments: FILED BY KAREN TAYLOR
WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL OVROM ELIZA 08/21/2003 08/22/2003 08/22/2003
Comments: OF ADULT PUBLIC DEF IS GRANTED
KAREN TAYLOR IS APPOINTED
ORDER OF ARRAIGNMENT MCGHEE ODELL 08/21/2003 08/21/2003 08/21/2003
Comments: Pretrial Conference 09/18/2003 01:30 PM DCC1
Trial 10/22/2003 09:00 AM DCC9
Bond is continued
TRIAL INFORMATION OVROM ELIZA 08/20/2003 08/20/2003 08/20/2003
Comments: FILED BY JAMES WARD
ORDER FOR ARRAIGNMENT MCGHEE ODELL 08/14/2003 08/14/2003
08/14/2003
Comments: IN CUSTODY ON 8/21/03 AT 10:30AM JAILCOURT
OUT OF CUSTODY AT 8AM ROOM 204
PRELIM HAS NOT BEEN WAIVED SET FOR 8/22/03
DNU - HEARING FOR BOND REDUCTION MCGHEE ODELL 08/14/2003 08/14/2003
08/14/2003
Comments: BOND $13000 C/S
APP FOR COUNSEL/FINANCIAL STATMENT MCGHEE ODELL 08/13/2003
08/13/2003 08/13/2003
Comments: APPROVED
PD IS APPOINTED
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 08/13/2003 08/13/2003 08/13/2003
Comments: BURGLARY 2ND
ANPD 03-75354
HEARING FOR INITIAL APPEARANCE MCGHEE ODELL 08/13/2003 08/13/2003
08/13/2003
Comments: Preliminary Hearing 08/22/2003 08:00 AM DA03
Bond Review 08/14/2003 08:30 AM DA04
Bond set for 713.5 $13000 C/S
Total Bond $13000 C/S
Indexed PUBLIC DEFENDER-POLK COUNTYPIN-
PK1000375
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
Citation Number:
Orig Paid Due Summary
3501.70 3501.70 0.00 COSTS
0.00 0.00 0.00 FINE
125.00 125.00 0.00 SURCHARGE
0.00 0.00 0.00 RESTITUTION
27.50 27.50 0.00 OTHER
-------------------------------------
$3654.20 $3654.20 $0.00
WILLS, KENT B [ Collected Sept 13, 2009]
Age: 40
Rogers, AR
Ankeny, IA
Marshalltown, IA
Bartlett, IL
Villa Park, IL
And from another source: Hanover Park, IL
WILLS, FREDERICK ALFRED (Kent's Dad 65 )
WILLS, MICHAEL A (Kent's son ??)
WILLS, JANET RAE (Kent's Mom 62 )
HARTWIG,TIFFANY JEANNE (Wills) (Kent's sister )
From another source: Kelly M Wills Kent's wife ?? )
( Samantha T Wills, Kathleen M Wills, James Wills ? )
-----------------------------------
Consider the following:
If "our" Kent is NOT Kent Bradley Wills then
his ""Fake ID"" has worked well, so what's
the problem?
Consider Kent's OWN comments about:
A. regarding his sister (by name)
B. property in CORPORATION name (Wills Family Trust)
C. footage of "Wills" plaque avoiding first name
D. apt building at 202 NW College Ave Ankeny IA
E. past residence in various cities in IA
F. connection to Arkansas
G. that he set up/was assigned this ""Fake ID""
Does an actual Garage Burglary Felon have a
RIGHT to con people into thinking he ISN'T one?
Does a TWO time thieving Felon actually have
a right to conceal his record and a right
against having his record exposed?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.bob-larson/msg/b9653f6758b592b8
Newsgroups: alt.fan.bob-larson, alt.law-enforcement, alt.usenet.kooks
From: Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com>
Local: Wed, Oct 15 2008 5:59 pm
> and running to Arkansas ain't gonna help you this time, Kent --
KBW > I've never run to Arkansas.
KBW > We have a house near Fort Smith, AR.
KBW > I'm confident your stalking has found
KBW > just where it is. You were able to
KBW > find my phone number from when I
KBW > lived in Chicago (you posted part
KBW > of it) back in 1988, so finding a
KBW > current address should have been
KBW > real easy for you.
2006 Assets Learning Conference Session III.8
Understanding the New Bankruptcy and Credit Laws:
Implications for the Field
Facilitated for the Assets Alliance by:
Janet Wills
Wills Resources
8250 Wills Court
Rogers, AR 72756
Phone & Fax Number: (479) 925-4001
E-mail: janetw...@yahoo.com
Ramona McKinney
Asset Builders Program Director
Southern Good Faith Fund
2304 West 29th Avenue
Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71603
Phone Number: (870) 535-6233, ext. 15
E-mail: rmck...@southerngff.org
History of Bankruptcy
Roots of word traced to medieval Italy – “banco rotto” which means
broken bench
Early U. S. bankruptcy law was modification of British law
1800’s – First federal bankruptcy law signed by President John Adams
in 1800 2 more laws passed and repealed until the Bankruptcy Act of
1898
1900’s and Beyond
A bankruptcy environment that had as its focus helping debtors seek a
new start remained in place for most of 20th century.
By beginning of 21st century creditors successfully argued that this
current law and environment were too easy on debtors
BAPCPA
The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005
was passed and went into effect October 19, 2005
Interruption in our presentation
There is a blank page in the back of your packet. As we are talking
today about bankruptcy and credit, please use it to jot down some of
your thoughts on how this new bankruptcy environment is going to
impact you and the people you serve.
Specifically write yourself a note or two about at least one
bankruptcy proceeding you know about personally. Then in 20 words or
less state what you think the contributing cause was for that person’s
financial problems.
We will want to hear your thoughts later.
Types of Bankruptcy
Chapter 7
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapter 7
For personal bankruptcy
Often referred to is liquidation bankruptcy
Debtors turn over nonessential assets to bankruptcy trustee, who then
sells it off and distributes proceeds to creditors eliminating debt
completely
This type of bankruptcy was most affected by the BAOCPA
Chapter 11
For corporations that want to reorganize their finances and remain in
business
Features a debt repayment plan
Chapter 12
For family farmers and fishermen
Features payment plan and debt restructuring
Chapter 13
For individuals
Features debt repayment plan
More individuals who previously would have filed under Chapter 7 will
be forced into Chapter 13
Changes with the BAPCPA
Means test
Required Credit Counseling
Required Debtor Education
Means Test
To qualify for Chapter 7 “liquidation bankruptcy” individual must pass
means test
Income must be below state’s median income
Or if it is above, debtor is subject to means test
Monthly income less allowed expenses
If after all these subtractions the total monthly disposable income is
less than $100 the debtor has passed the Means Test
Means Test cont.
If disposable income is more than $166.67 Means test is flunked and
debtor is not eligible for Chapter 7, must go to Chapter 13
If disposable income is between $100 and $166.67 then calculations are
figured to see if what is left over is enough to pay off more than 25%
of unsecured debt over 5 years.
In other words – the means test is not easy.
Required Credit Counseling
Debtors filing for Chapter 7 must complete required credit counseling
& debtors must pay for it.* Credit Counseling must be provided by a
qualifying 501(c)3 organization that has been approved by Bankruptcy
Trustees.
*fee can be waived
Debtor Education
2 hours required
Required topics
Budget Development
Setting short-term & long-term financial goals as well as developing
skills to assist in achieving these goals
Calculating gross monthly income & net monthly income
Identifying & classifying monthly expenses as fixed, variable, or
periodic
Debtor Education
Required topics cont
Money Management
Keeping adequate financial records
Developing decision-making skills required to distinguish between
wants and needs and to comparison shop for goods & services
Maintaining appropriate levels of insurance coverage, taking into
account the types and costs of insurance
Saving for emergences, for periodic payments, and for financial goals
Debtor education
required topics cont.
Wise Use of Credit
Types sources, and costs of credit & loans
Identifying debt warning signs
Appropriate use of credit & alternatives to credit use
Checking a credit rating
Debtor Education
required topics cont.
Consumer information
Public and non-profit resources for consumer assistance
Applicable consumer protection laws and regulations, such as those
governing correction of a credit record and protection against
consumer fraud
Approved credit counseling and debtor education can be provided
In person
Internet
Telephone
(can be approved for a combination of internet/telephone. That is the
approval we have)
www.usdoj.gov/ust/
The U. S. Trustees home page
A Huge wealth of information
www.usdoj.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/ccde/cc_approved.htm#AL
Web site (part of the trustee web site) for list of approved credit
counselors and debtor education providers
Click on state
Click on your judicial district
Bankruptcy and the Future
At first it’s a relief – you file for bankruptcy, the creditors stop
calling and harassing you, and the juggling act ends.
Many people who file bankruptcy ask, “Now what can I expect?”
Let’s begin looking at “what’s next” by completing the quiz.
Bankruptcy will expire from your credit report after 10 years.
Some credit reporting agencies may remove Chapter 13 after 7 years.
Bankruptcy is for life – if you apply for insurance, credit, or a job
you can be asked if you have ever filed for bankruptcy. There is no
time limit even if it is very old.
Bankruptcy will stay with me forever: True.
2. The accounts included in my bankruptcy will be removed from my
credit report upon discharge: False.
Accounts included in bankruptcy expire independently from bankruptcy.
These accounts will be marked “Included in BK” on the credit report.
They will remain up to 7 years after filing.
After discharge the balance must be reported as “0.”
I will never get credit again: False.
You can expect receive many offers of credit.
Many of these may be from unscrupulous creditors with activation fees
and/or membership fees.
There are “debtor-friendly” agencies that specialize in credit repair
loans.
Do not be too eager to get credit again – know the terms and
conditions of the credit.
I will not be able to by a home for 10 years: False.
There are some lenders who prefer to deal with consumers with good
credit and will not do business for the 10 years it remains.
It is not a quick fix, it may take those in Chapter 13 three to five
years to complete their payment plan.
With strides to rebuild credit and no new negative “marks,” you may be
able to receive a conventional mortgage within one to two years.
Even after bankruptcy I may still have some of my existing debt:
True.
Even with Chapter 7 not all debt will be discharged, it depends on the
type of debts that are owed.
Certain debts that cannot be discharged include: most taxes, child
support, most student loans, court fines and criminal restitution, and
personal injury.
Debts incurred after filing for bankruptcy will not be included.
I will lose all my property if I file for bankruptcy: False.
With Chapter 13, which is like a payment plan, you may be allowed to
keep property.
Chapter 7 involves the sale of all assets that are not exempt.
Exemptions differ from state to state but typically allow: equity in
home, insurance, retirement plans, personal property, car, public
benefits, and/or tools used on job.
Filing for bankruptcy will lower my credit score: True.
The drop in the credit score will depend on the type of debt and
payment history prior to filing.
Credit score is calculated using a complicated algorithm that takes
into account hundreds of factors and values.
It is very difficult to predict how the credit score will be affected
but bankruptcy is one of the most negative factors included in the
report.
I cannot file for bankruptcy for 8 years after discharge: True.
This is only true for Chapter 7.
Chapter 13 waiting period is shorter and can be as little as two
years.
After bankruptcy all my debts will be free and clear and I will have
peace of mind: False.
As stated in #5 all debts will not be discharged.
Bankruptcy is listed in the top five life-altering negative events
that one can go through.
Bankruptcy is life-altering and leaves deep wounds both to the psyche
and the credit report.
After bankruptcy I will need to take steps to protect myself from
another bankruptcy: True.
Even if the bankruptcy was through no fault of your own it will be a
good time to examine what led to bankruptcy to begin to prepare for
unforeseen events.
Take a critical look at spending and saving habits.
Implement strategies to control spending, develop a budget, and start
a savings plan.
Let’s Talk About It
Implications to the IDA field
The “typical” person seeking bankruptcy
Contributing causes
Kent Wills
wrote:
>KBW > I do appreciate your PROVING that you do
>KBW > not follow the Jesus of the Bible, but the
>KBW > father of all lies.
>KBW > How long have you been serving Satan? �Serious question.
>
>Yes, Kent, I'm sure you think that ALL of your
>opponents are in league with the devil !
Nope.
>
>And we all CONSPIRE against you, too!
I'm not the one who thinks there is a MASSIVE COALITION FORCE
(emphases Pangborn's) out to get him. Ken Pangborn is.
I realize I'm not important enough to warrant a conspiracy and I'm
fine with it. I don't have a series of mental defects, like Pangborn,
that force me to believe I'm important enough to have a massive amount
of people out to get me.
If you want to believe I am so important, that's fine. Your drug
induced (unless you lied about using and abusing illegal drugs)
delusions have caused me no harm to date. There's no reason to
believe they will do so in the future.
>
>Isn't that just a bit too CONVENIENT and easy for you?
>
Your pathological lying, while interesting, is neither convenient
nor inconvenient for me.
>
>
>On Dec 31 2009, 9:03 pm, yumhuyk <wostyn...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Is he afraid of someone using his USENET postings against him? Like
>> his parole officer?
>>
>> yours in Christ,
>> isamu
>
>He posted a video of a speed boat he claimed was his.
Your comment implies it's no longer up. I did a quick check, and
it's still available. If only you knew the URL.
Tell you what, once you post the picture of David dressed as a
Nazi and the one of me on a pony, or admit you've been lying about the
existence of both the whole time, I'll post the URL.
>
>The boat registration was clearly visible and didn't check out.
With whom did you speak when you called to verify?
If it was done via the postal service, please post a scan of the
letter.
If you're depending on Jonezie's exposed lie, well, better luck
next time.
>
>He posted a video of a Pool house and a plaque which said
>Wills but carefully avoided taping the first name on the plaque.
If you want Lin's and my real first names, you'll have to get them
from a source other than me.
I realize that you want the people you're trying, and failing, to
stalk to help you. It's very clear you're too incompetent to get any
information without A LOT of help.
It's due, I believe, to the mental retardation your admitted use
and abuse of illegal drugs has given you.
>
>His photobucket site has a photo of another speed boat
>referred to as one of their boats.
It's the same boat, stupid.
Did you note the difference in registration numbers? The ones
that are visible, I mean. You couldn't notice the others, since they
are censored.
What does the different numbers tell you?
>
>It also has THREE photos of his BMW sedan.
>He edited out the license plates.
You'll have to get your stalking fodder from another source.
BTW, you just PROVED Pangborn a liar.
Oh, here's a C&P of his claim:
Tell me Kunt WHY is it that when you show a photo of something, a
boat, a car, whatever with actual registration numbers they ALWAYS
seem to turn out to be registered to other names than yours?
Message-ID: <z42Nj.9520$Q53.3363@trnddc08>
This isn't the first time you've sought to PROVE Pangborn the
liar he is. Is there some animosity between the two of you? He
frequently insults you and you frequently expose him for the liar he
is.
>It could be his Dad's BMW.
It could be anyone's, really. That it happens to be mine is my
good fortune.
Sadly, you lack the ability to learn, so you'll never have the
education necessary to earn enough to afford something as nice as a
BMW.
>
>http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc127/kwills_photo/
>
>Kent's parents are so worried about him blowing
>the family inheritance on magic beans that they
>had to put most of it into a protective trust.
You already admitted, by YOUR standards, that claim is a drug
induced lie.
My parents don't have a trust of any sort. But you're still free
to prove your claim that they do. If you would rather continue
admitting, by the same standards you DEMAND be held to others, it's
another of your MANY drug induced LIES, you are free to do that as
well.
>
>Kent once posted that all of his "stuff" like
>boats, cars, and a little plane are all property
>of the family "corporation" for tax purposes.
No I didn't.
You made the tax claim. You LIED and made the FACT CLAIM that
the corporation was a tax scam. You ran away (metaphorically speaking)
when I explained to you how corporations get double taxation.
Clearly you never took an into to economics class. But then,
expecting someone who has a mind that, on a good day, operates at
about a fourth grade level, as yours does, to understand such things
is a bit mean. I probably should cease.
>
>It was only a little fib.
You presented a GIANT lie.
>
>Notice that his Mother (bottom training document)
>is some kind of professional money manager who
>would probably have reason to know about protective trusts.
As you already know, I have never met the woman.
My mom has been retired for MANY years. And she wasn't a money
manager when she was working.
>
>Kent once posted comments when his sister Tiffany got married.
I did? Since you already know I don't have a sister by that
name, I don't see how I could.
But by all means, prove I did so (a win for you), or admit, by
your standards, another of your drug induced lies has been exposed
(another loss for you).
>
>Kent claimed that HE sold the apartment building
>at 202 NW College Ave but the public records
>showed a slightly different sale price and show
>Seller: WILLS, FRED A. & JANET R.
>Buyer: THE SWEENEY REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST
>in 1994, but then 1999 records show that Kent
>himself had to be sued for RENT by SWEENEY.
Projecting the MANY times you were sued for not paying your rent
isn't likely to convert anyone, Greg.
>
>Kent once claimed that he deliberately set
>up "bread crumbs" to mislead a racist stalker.
>(Like his birthday page?)
Why do you lie? Serious question.
I've asked this question of you may times, but you've never
answered.
By your own standards, you've admitted your claim that Dr. Rabbi
Daniel "Doc Savage" Goldblum is a racist was and is nothing more than
a drug inspired lie.
Doesn't it suck when your own standards are used against you?
If you feel my using your own standards against you is in some
way unfair, perhaps you should reconsider DEMANDING they be used with
others.
>
>Kent once claimed that one of his buddies
>""assigned"" him the name.
Double quotation marks still mean nothing at all.
That aside, it was given as a joke. A truth I explained long ago.
You may recall how I stated, "I'm the Kent Dorfman of the '90s!"
Sadly, your admitted use and abuse of illegal drugs (unless that
was also one of your lies -- if so, please explain the motivation
behind it) has impaired your memory.
>
>Kent also once claimed that one of his buddies
>faked up the records on the courts web site
>just to poke fun at him or something.
I made no such claim.
>
>The fact that his stuff appears on THREE
>different official state records web sites
>and the official printed caselaw books didn't
>slow him down for awhile.
There is no such thing to be found in any case law books.
>
>Kent and Moe actually tried to sell the story
>that the online state court, state supreme court
>and state corrections records were all faked.
That's not the claim either of us presented.
What is the SPECIFIC reason you are so unable to be honest?
>
>He had Moe arguing that line with him for
>a long time, but it gradually faded and
>they replaced their argument into saying that
>he isn't Kent Bradley Wills at all.
You've admitted I'm not.
>
>If it wasn't him then why claim the records were doctored?
You wouldn't understand honesty. And this is truly sad.
>
>Kent Web Mastered a really old BIRTHDAY web page
>and listed his own birthday as January 8th.
Liar.
>A mysterious new web master mysteriously
>removed Kent's listing and Kent crowed.
I was always the webmaster of the page. Right up until the day
the domain registration expired.
Even though the domain no longer existed, a truth that was easy
to verify, you still were compelled to LIE and claim the domain and
page were up and running.
>
>If you look at public records showing past
>cities that Kent, his sister or his parents lived at,
>and compare them with what Kent has
>posted, the matches are amazing.
When have my parents and/or sisters lived in Chicago? Please
prove my parents and/or sisters live, or lived, in the town where I
currently live.
Here's a hint as to the current town: It's NOT any of the places
you've claimed to PROVE I live via the phone book.
>
>Then there's the logic and style comparison.
>In the IA Supreme Court ruling you can see that
>his appeal was SO stupid that you'd think the
>attorney would be disbarred for even filing it!
So now you claim an attorney argued it.
Was someone finally able to penetrate your drug induced haze and
get you to understand the LIES you were posting showed the defendant
didn't argue the appeal? You claimed, for over a year, that Kent
Wills argued it.
You've painted yourself into a metaphorical corner. You either
LIED when you claimed Kent presented arguments, or you are lying now
when you claim it was an attorney.
Which do you wish to admit was the lie? Since both can't be true
at the same time, one must be a lie (if either were an error, you
would have admitted it).
>
>The garage burglar quibbled about the fact they
>got a harsher sentence for robbing an attached
>garage, any attorney should have known that
>is expressly spelled out in black letter law!
Your attorney couldn't even get arguments heard. Even if I were
the one who was convicted, arguments were heard.
What evidence was presented at your trial for BEATING your
ex-wife that so proved you guilty the Iowa Supreme Court REFUSED to
hear arguments for an appeal?
>
>"Our" Kent argues the unarguable constantly.
If that were true, you should be able to win once in a while. That
you ALWAYS end up running to HIDE stands as proof that you're
lying...still.
>
>One of my earliest recollections about Kent
>is that I joked that he would argue for gasoline
>in a fire extinguisher.
>
So you've dropped the LIE that this was our first argument?
>Kent then proved my comment to be absolutely
>true by arguing that liquid gasoline does not burn.
Actually, I pointed out that if you can keep it in liquid form, it
won't burn. Not even the same area code as the LIE you present.
Since the mental retardation you present isn't an act, you've
never understood this.
>
>How is that NOT the guy who argued about
>an attached garage not being a residence?
Given that I cited applicable statutory and case law (I even
included links) showing that it is, your lie still fails.
I gotta give you props for continuing to present the same lie
long after it was exposed as the lie it is.
>
>Kent tells LIES and half truths so profusely that
>it seems whatever truth he tells is just a SETUP
>for another lie.
Even if that were true, it would mean I'm capable of honesty. You
can't make the same claim without lying.
>
>Yes, Kent knows very well that an archive of
>his posts often bites him in the posterior.
Yet very few of my posts are not archived.
[snip of items Greg has openly admitted are not about me]
Again I ask you, Greg, why do you post that which you openly
admit isn't about me as if it is about me? I've asked this so may
times I've lost count. You've NEVER answered, preferring instead to
RUN and HIDE as you so often do when your lies are exposed.
I realize that by YOUR standards, you've already admitted your
use and abuse of illegal drugs compels you to do it, but I would like
something more solid that your guilt by default standards.
Please explain, in as much detail as you feel is needed, why you
continue to post that which you've openly admitted you KNOW isn't
about me.
A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott "Piggly
Wiggly" Hanson (either directly or through the same standards he
DEMANDS be held to others):
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, by
attacking my first wife (deceased).
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child abuser:
"Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child
abuser
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
triumphantly.
--a true story
As of Sunday, Nov. 29, 2009:
Financials
Title: STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREG SCOTT
Case: 06571 AGCR015216 (LINN)
Citation Number:
Summary Orig Paid Due
COSTS 9200.00 850.00 8350.00
FINE 500.00 500.00 0.00
SURCHARGE 150.00 150.00 0.00
RESTITUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00
OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00
$9850.00 $1500.00 $8350.00
Yes, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson still owes over
$8000.00 related to his convictions for BEATING his ex-wife.
"I am now a "founded" child abuser for making a
7 year old take a fast cold shower."
-- Gregory Scot "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson bragging in MID
<cu6H6.14493$3c6.3...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com>
In Message-ID:
<c7be6a38-8d1d-4c0a...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson admitted that by his standards,
he RAPED his ex-wife. The same ex-wife he was twice convicted for
BEATING.
In Message-ID:
<8db2eada-0546-4c1a...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson admits that his use and abuse of
illegal drugs forced him to LIE about the existence of certain
photographs.
Greegor
Kent, Since you couldn't understand scare quotes,
I conclude you are sarcasm impaired as well.
KBW > I don't have a series of mental defects,
Sure you don't!
KBW > Your pathological lying,
Official state web links?
KBW > while interesting, is neither convenient
KBW > nor inconvenient for me.
Always glad to help.
G > He posted a video of a speed boat he claimed was his.
KBW > Your comment implies it's no longer up.
KBW > I did a quick check, and it's still available.
KBW > If only you knew the URL.
Kenty, Let the grownups talk to your psychiatrist.
KBW > Tell you what, once you post the picture
KBW > of David dressed as a Nazi and the one
KBW > of me on a pony, or admit you've been
KBW > lying about the existence of both the
KBW > whole time, I'll post the URL.
If you give me a chunk of gold I'll give you some magic beans.
G > The boat registration was clearly visible and didn't check out.
KBW > With whom did you speak when you
KBW > called to verify? If it was done via the
KBW > postal service, please post a scan of
KBW > the letter. If you're depending on
KBW > Jonezie's exposed lie, well, better
KBW > luck next time.
G > He posted a video of a Pool house and
G > a plaque which said Wills but carefully
G > avoided taping the first name on the plaque.
KBW > If you want Lin's and my real first names,
KBW > you'll have to get them from a
KBW > source other than me.
Kent's Appeal
IN PRINTED LAW BOOKS
West's North Western Reporter
Second Series
A Unit of the National Reporter System
Volume 696 N.W.2d
Cite as 696 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 2005)
Kent's Appeal
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
http://www.assess.co.polk.ia.us/cgi-bin/seephoto/photosize.cgi?gp=802415452029&size=Large
Notice that KENT made claims re sale of 202 NW College apartment
building
That's geoparcel gp=802415452029
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
( Step by step instructions elsewhere with name Kent B Wills )
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
http://www.rogersgis.com/zoom/Residential_Development/indexfull.htm
http://www.arcountydata.com/county.asp?county=Benton
Do It Yourself Instructions to look up Kent's record
Iowa Department of Corrections records for Kent
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
Name Kent Bradley Wills [ As Collected Sept 13, 2009 ]
Offender Number 1155768
Sex M
Birth Date 01/08/1969
Age 40
Location
Offense
County Of Commitment
Commitment Date
Duration
TDD/SDD *
* TDD = Tentative Discharge Date
* SDD = Supervision Discharge Date
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 12/16/2008
Probation C Felony Polk 12/16/2008
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 11/25/2003
KBW > I realize that you want the people you're trying,
KBW > and failing, to stalk to help you. It's very clear
KBW > you're too incompetent to get any information
KBW > without A LOT of help.
KBW > It's due, I believe, to the mental retardation your
KBW > admitted use and abuse of illegal drugs has given you.
G > His photobucket site has a photo of another speed boat
G > referred to as one of their boats.
KBW > It's the same boat, stupid.
Did I say that it is or isn't the same boat?
KBW > Did you note the difference in registration
KBW > numbers? The ones that are visible, I mean.
KBW > You couldn't notice the others, since they
KBW > are censored.
KBW > What does the different numbers tell you?
I haven't noticed any different numbers.
G > It also has THREE photos of his BMW sedan.
G > He edited out the license plates.
KBW > You'll have to get your stalking fodder from
KBW > another source. BTW, you just PROVED
KBW > Pangborn a liar. Oh, here's a C&P of his claim:
KRP > Tell me Kunt WHY is it that when you show
KRP > a photo of something, a boat, a car, whatever
KRP > with actual registration numbers they ALWAYS
KRP > seem to turn out to be registered to other
KRP > names than yours?
How does this differ from my assertions?
I agree with this statement.
KBW > This isn't the first time you've sought to PROVE
KBW > Pangborn the liar he is. Is there some animosity
KBW > between the two of you? He frequently insults
KBW > you and you frequently expose him for the liar he is.
G > It could be his Dad's BMW.
KBW > It could be anyone's, really.
KBW > That it happens to be mine is my good fortune.
KBW > Sadly, you lack the ability to learn, so you'll
KBW > never have the education necessary to earn
KBW > enough to afford something as nice as a BMW.
http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc127/kwills_photo/
G > Kent's parents are so worried about him blowing
G > the family inheritance on magic beans that they
G > had to put most of it into a protective trust.
KBW > You already admitted, by YOUR standards,
KBW > that claim is a drug induced lie.
Kent Wills classic deception B.
KBW > My parents don't have a trust of any sort.
They gave it to you and your siblings.
KBW > But you're still free to prove your claim
KBW > that they do. If you would rather continue
KBW > admitting, by the same standards you
KBW > DEMAND be held to others, it's another of
KBW > your MANY drug induced LIES, you are free
KBW > to do that as well.
G > Kent once posted that all of his "stuff" like
G > boats, cars, and a little plane are all property
G > of the family "corporation" for tax purposes.
KBW > No I didn't.
KBW > You made the tax claim.
KBW > You LIED and made the FACT CLAIM
KBW > that the corporation was a tax scam.
KBW > You ran away (metaphorically speaking)
KBW > when I explained to you how corporations
KBW > get double taxation.
The original question was about why you
use the x-no-archive bit.
Who is running away from that?
That is in itself a kind of running away.
KBW > Clearly you never took an into to economics
KBW > class. But then, expecting someone who
KBW > has a mind that, on a good day, operates at
KBW > about a fourth grade level, as yours does, to
KBW > understand such things is a bit mean.
KBW > I probably should cease.
G > It was only a little fib.
KBW > You presented a GIANT lie.
You set your own messages to self destruct.
That was the subject here.
G > Notice that his Mother (bottom training document)
G > is some kind of professional money manager who
G > would probably have reason to know about protective trusts.
KBW > As you already know, I have never met
KBW > the woman.
Public records connect you.
KBW > My mom has been retired for MANY
KBW > years. And she wasn't a money
KBW > manager when she was working.
G > Kent once posted comments when his sister Tiffany got married.
KBW > I did? Since you already know I don't have
KBW > a sister by that name, I don't see how I could.
Kent Wills classical deception E.
KBW > But by all means, prove I did so (a win for you),
KBW > or admit, by your standards, another of your
KBW > drug induced lies has been exposed
KBW > (another loss for you).
Kent Wills classic deception B.
G > Kent claimed that HE sold the apartment building
G > at 202 NW College Ave but the public records
G > showed a slightly different sale price and show
G > Seller: WILLS, FRED A. & JANET R.
G > Buyer: THE SWEENEY REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST
G > in 1994, but then 1999 records show that Kent
G > himself had to be sued for RENT by SWEENEY.
KBW > Projecting the MANY times you were
KBW > sued for not paying your rent
KBW > isn't likely to convert anyone, Greg.
G > Kent once claimed that he deliberately set
G > up "bread crumbs" to mislead a racist stalker.
G > (Like his birthday page?)
KBW > Why do you lie? Serious question.
KBW > I've asked this question of you may times,
KBW > but you've never answered.
KBW > By your own standards, you've admitted
KBW > your claim
My claim? Yours.
Gonna deny all of your whining about
your alleged racist stalker?
KBW > that Dr. Rabbi Daniel
KBW > "Doc Savage" Goldblum is a racist was
KBW > and is nothing more than a drug inspired lie.
It was YOUR lie, I think.
It's funny how you present your claims as my own.
Typical Willsian circular gibberish.
KBW > Doesn't it suck when your own standards
KBW > are used against you?
KBW > If you feel my using your own standards
KBW > against you is in some way unfair,
Parthological ""logic"" based on fallacy.
KBW > perhaps you should reconsider
KBW > DEMANDING they be used with
KBW > others.
G > Kent once claimed that one of his buddies
G > ""assigned"" him the name.
KBW > Double quotation marks still mean
KBW > nothing at all.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
Writers use scare quotes for a variety of reasons. When the enclosed
text is a quotation from another source, scare quotes may indicate
that the writer does not accept the usage of the phrase (or the phrase
itself)[3], that the writer feels its use is potentially ironic, or
that the writer feels it is a misnomer. This meaning may serve to
distance the writer from the quoted content.
KBW > That aside, it was given as a joke.
KBW > A truth I explained long ago.
KBW > You may recall how I stated,
KBW > "I'm the Kent Dorfman of the '90s!"
KBW > Sadly, your admitted use and abuse
KBW > of illegal drugs (unless that was
KBW > also one of your lies -- if so, please
KBW > explain the motivation behind it) has
KBW > impaired your memory.
Got a LINK?
I didn't know of you in the 90's.
Kent Wills classic deception B - illegal drugs
G > Kent also once claimed that one of his buddies
G > faked up the records on the courts web site
G > just to poke fun at him or something.
KBW > I made no such claim.
> >The fact that his stuff appears on THREE
> >different official state records web sites
> >and the official printed caselaw books didn't
> >slow him down for awhile.
>
KBW > There is no such thing to be found in any case law books.
IN PRINTED LAW BOOKS - Legal Citation
West's North Western Reporter
Second Series
A Unit of the National Reporter System
Volume 696 N.W.2d
Cite as 696 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 2005)
G >Kent and Moe actually tried to sell the story
G > that the online state court, state supreme court
G > and state corrections records were all faked.
KBW > That's not the claim either of us presented.
KBW > What is the SPECIFIC reason you are so unable to be honest?
The original subject was your self deleting posts.
G > He had Moe arguing that line with him for
G > a long time, but it gradually faded and
G > they replaced their argument into saying that
G > he isn't Kent Bradley Wills at all.
KBW > You've admitted I'm not.
Lie.
Pathological pretense that you don't
know what scare quotes mean, Kent?
Or just pretzel logic?
G > If it wasn't him then why claim the records were doctored?
KBW > You wouldn't understand honesty. And this is truly sad.
You are Kent Bradley Wills, DOB Jan 8, 1969!
G > Kent Web Mastered a really old BIRTHDAY web page
G > and listed his own birthday as January 8th.
KBW > Liar.
G > A mysterious new web master mysteriously
G > removed Kent's listing and Kent crowed.
KBW > I was always the webmaster of the page.
KBW > Right up until the day the domain registration
KBW > expired. Even though the domain no longer
KBW > existed, a truth that was easy to verify,
KBW > you still were compelled to LIE and
KBW > claim the domain and page were up
KBW > and running.
I cut and pasted the birthday list into usenet.
G > If you look at public records showing past
G > cities that Kent, his sister or his parents lived at,
G > and compare them with what Kent has
G > posted, the matches are amazing.
KBW > When have my parents and/or sisters
KBW > lived in Chicago? Please prove my
KBW > parents and/or sisters live, or lived,
KBW > in the town where I currently live.
KBW > Here's a hint as to the current town:
KBW > It's NOT any of the places you've
KBW > claimed to PROVE I live via the phone book.
G > Then there's the logic and style comparison.
G > In the IA Supreme Court ruling you can see that
G > his appeal was SO stupid that you'd think the
G > attorney would be disbarred for even filing it!
KBW > So now you claim an attorney argued it.
KBW > Was someone finally able to penetrate your drug induced haze and
KBW > get you to understand the LIES you were posting showed the
defendant
KBW > didn't argue the appeal? You claimed, for over a year, that
Kent
KBW > Wills argued it.
Attorney is YOUR representative.
KBW > You've painted yourself into a metaphorical
KBW > corner. You either LIED when you claimed
KBW > Kent presented arguments, or you are lying
KBW > now when you claim it was an attorney.
Attorney is YOUR representative.
Missing middle deception. It's BOTH, not either/or.
KBW > Which do you wish to admit was the lie?
KBW > Since both can't be true at the same
KBW > time, one must be a lie (if either were an
KBW > error, you would have admitted it).
False dichotomy again.
It's a classic fallacy.
Used a lot by con artists.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>MASSIVE COALITION FORCE
Pangborn is the one who believes there is such a thing out to get
him.
>
>Kent, Since you couldn't understand scare quotes,
>I conclude you are sarcasm impaired as well.
I fully understand scare quotes. They are single quotation marks
(double if you follow British rules of grammar) to indicate irony,
sarcasm or jest. Here's an example: I'm really "impressed" with your
ability to consistently get your acts of deception exposed, Greg.
In the above sentence, I made use of scare quotes to indicate I'm
not really impressed. You use double quotation marks (quadruple if you
follow British rules) which have no meaning. They are equal to using
nothing at all.
You may lie about this all you want and need. The truth will
forever remain the truth.
>
>KBW > I don't have a series of mental defects,
>
>Sure you don't!
Feel free to prove I do, if I do.
>
>KBW > Your pathological lying,
>
>Official state web links?
There are official state web links to your pathological lying?
News to me.
Care to post some links, or at least some key words for use with
search engines? I'd like to see the web sites that you claim somehow
document your pathological lying.
>
>KBW > while interesting, is neither convenient
>KBW > nor inconvenient for me.
>
>Always glad to help.
>
Great.
>
>
>G > He posted a video of a speed boat he claimed was his.
>
>KBW > Your comment implies it's no longer up.
>KBW > I did a quick check, and it's still available.
>KBW > If only you knew the URL.
>
>Kenty, Let the grownups talk to your psychiatrist.
Outside of your drug induced delusions, I don't have one.
You may well believe that being married to a psychologist is
equal to having a psychiatrist, but it is not. You'll need to come to
terms with this truth.
>
>KBW > Tell you what, once you post the picture
>KBW > of David dressed as a Nazi and the one
>KBW > of me on a pony, or admit you've been
>KBW > lying about the existence of both the
>KBW > whole time, I'll post the URL.
>
>If you give me a chunk of gold I'll give you some magic beans.
Just post the pictures, or admit you've been lying about them the
whole time. I don't think my request is unreasonable.
Or are you admitting you've been lying? Since I don't have a
chunk of gold, I can't give it to you. Much like you may be admitting
the pictures have never existed.
>
>G > The boat registration was clearly visible and didn't check out.
>
>KBW > With whom did you speak when you
>KBW > called to verify? If it was done via the
>KBW > postal service, please post a scan of
>KBW > the letter. If you're depending on
>KBW > Jonezie's exposed lie, well, better
>KBW > luck next time.
>
>G > He posted a video of a Pool house and
>G > a plaque which said Wills but carefully
>G > avoided taping the first name on the plaque.
>
>KBW > If you want Lin's and my real first names,
>KBW > you'll have to get them from a
>KBW > source other than me.
>
>Kent's Appeal
Once again you admit it's not about me. If it were, you would
have written something like, "Your appeal."
I'll be certain to mention your most recent admission from time
to time.
[Snip of information you freely and openly admit isn't about me]
>
>
>
>KBW > I realize that you want the people you're trying,
>KBW > and failing, to stalk to help you. It's very clear
>KBW > you're too incompetent to get any information
>KBW > without A LOT of help.
>
>KBW > It's due, I believe, to the mental retardation your
>KBW > admitted use and abuse of illegal drugs has given you.
>
>G > His photobucket site has a photo of another speed boat
>G > referred to as one of their boats.
>
>KBW > It's the same boat, stupid.
>
>Did I say that it is or isn't the same boat?
"His photobucket site has a photo of another speed boat..."
If you intended to present it's the same, you wouldn't have added
the qualifier.
>
>KBW > Did you note the difference in registration
>KBW > numbers? The ones that are visible, I mean.
>KBW > You couldn't notice the others, since they
>KBW > are censored.
>KBW > What does the different numbers tell you?
>
>I haven't noticed any different numbers.
If they are the same, then you've just proved Jonezie lied.
>
>G > It also has THREE photos of his BMW sedan.
>G > He edited out the license plates.
>
>KBW > You'll have to get your stalking fodder from
>KBW > another source. BTW, you just PROVED
>KBW > Pangborn a liar. Oh, here's a C&P of his claim:
>
>KRP > Tell me Kunt WHY is it that when you show
>KRP > a photo of something, a boat, a car, whatever
>KRP > with actual registration numbers they ALWAYS
>KRP > seem to turn out to be registered to other
>KRP > names than yours?
>
>How does this differ from my assertions?
>I agree with this statement.
So you agree that Ken was lying. Well, DUH! You proved it.
Not even you are so far gone that you would disagree with
something you proved yourself.
Why did you snip the MID? Do you fear people seeing that once
again you PROVED Kenneth Robert Pangborn the liar he is?
>
>
>KBW > This isn't the first time you've sought to PROVE
>KBW > Pangborn the liar he is. Is there some animosity
>KBW > between the two of you? He frequently insults
>KBW > you and you frequently expose him for the liar he is.
>
>G > It could be his Dad's BMW.
>
>KBW > It could be anyone's, really.
>KBW > That it happens to be mine is my good fortune.
>KBW > Sadly, you lack the ability to learn, so you'll
>KBW > never have the education necessary to earn
>KBW > enough to afford something as nice as a BMW.
>
>
>http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc127/kwills_photo/
>
>G > Kent's parents are so worried about him blowing
>G > the family inheritance on magic beans that they
>G > had to put most of it into a protective trust.
>
>KBW > You already admitted, by YOUR standards,
>KBW > that claim is a drug induced lie.
>
>Kent Wills classic deception B.
Again you PROVE that you see truth as deception. How very sad.
>
>KBW > My parents don't have a trust of any sort.
>
>They gave it to you and your siblings.
If true, your claim that they have it to protect some sort of
wealth fails. I, and my sisters, would have open access to it had
they given the phantom trust to us.
You may as well admit you've been lying about it the whole time.
Your attempts to rationalize your lie are backfiring on you.
Time for you to HIDE from this truth, Greg.
>
>KBW > But you're still free to prove your claim
>KBW > that they do. If you would rather continue
>KBW > admitting, by the same standards you
>KBW > DEMAND be held to others, it's another of
>KBW > your MANY drug induced LIES, you are free
>KBW > to do that as well.
>
>G > Kent once posted that all of his "stuff" like
>G > boats, cars, and a little plane are all property
>G > of the family "corporation" for tax purposes.
>
>KBW > No I didn't.
>KBW > You made the tax claim.
>KBW > You LIED and made the FACT CLAIM
>KBW > that the corporation was a tax scam.
>KBW > You ran away (metaphorically speaking)
>KBW > when I explained to you how corporations
>KBW > get double taxation.
>
>The original question was about why you
>use the x-no-archive bit.
And you changed it. This is common with Usenet. A thread will
start about one thing, then morph into something different.
Usually there is a logical progression. You, in your futile
attempt to hide the truth that few of my posts are not archived, did a
rapid alteration of the subject being discussed.
>
>Who is running away from that?
Whereas you brought up all the stuff to which I replied, clearly
it's you.
Care to explain to the readers just WHY you're running? It was
yukkie who made the initial claim. A claim I was quickly able to
PROVE a lie.
>
>That is in itself a kind of running away.
>
I'm glad you are able to admit you're running away from the
TRUTH. I'm certain everyone reading was and is well aware that you do
so, but it's so much better when you openly admit it. Even if you
didn't intend to.
>KBW > Clearly you never took an into to economics
>KBW > class. But then, expecting someone who
>KBW > has a mind that, on a good day, operates at
>KBW > about a fourth grade level, as yours does, to
>KBW > understand such things is a bit mean.
>KBW > I probably should cease.
>
>G > It was only a little fib.
>
>KBW > You presented a GIANT lie.
>
>You set your own messages to self destruct.
>That was the subject here.
That's the subject of the thread, but you changed the subject
being discussed in your futile effort to distract from the truth that
very few of my posts don't get archived.
It's OK. I'm sure everyone is aware how slow you are mentally.
Heck, it took you roughly six months to realize that I wasn't
archiving my posts at all. Once you did catch on, I began archiving
all posts originating from misc.legal. The Lar$on and friends groups
still get no archiving, unless I manually remove the no archive
setting.
What's most sad is that it took you about six months. For most
this wouldn't come as a surprise. Few people bother reading the
headers. However, you use Google, which prominently displays a notice
on posts that won't be archived. Even with this notice appearing on
each and every post from me during that six months, you didn't notice.
I guess I should have expected you won't notice all posts from me
originating in misc.legal get archived.
>
>G > Notice that his Mother (bottom training document)
>G > is some kind of professional money manager who
>G > would probably have reason to know about protective trusts.
>
>KBW > As you already know, I have never met
>KBW > the woman.
>
>Public records connect you.
You may present the same lie as often as you want and/or need.
Your lie will never become the truth.
>
>KBW > My mom has been retired for MANY
>KBW > years. And she wasn't a money
>KBW > manager when she was working.
>
>G > Kent once posted comments when his sister Tiffany got married.
>
>KBW > I did? Since you already know I don't have
>KBW > a sister by that name, I don't see how I could.
>
>Kent Wills classical deception E.
Again you offer undeniable PROOF that you're so messed up you see
truth as a deception.
Not that any more proof was or is needed. No one has ever tried
to counter the claim that you see truth as deception.
>
>KBW > But by all means, prove I did so (a win for you),
>KBW > or admit, by your standards, another of your
>KBW > drug induced lies has been exposed
>KBW > (another loss for you).
>
>Kent Wills classic deception B.
How is you proving a claim you made deception of any sort?
>
>G > Kent claimed that HE sold the apartment building
>G > at 202 NW College Ave but the public records
>G > showed a slightly different sale price and show
>G > Seller: WILLS, FRED A. & JANET R.
>G > Buyer: THE SWEENEY REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST
>G > in 1994, but then 1999 records show that Kent
>G > himself had to be sued for RENT by SWEENEY.
>
>KBW > Projecting the MANY times you were
>KBW > sued for not paying your rent
>KBW > isn't likely to convert anyone, Greg.
>
>G > Kent once claimed that he deliberately set
>G > up "bread crumbs" to mislead a racist stalker.
>G > (Like his birthday page?)
>
>KBW > Why do you lie? Serious question.
>KBW > I've asked this question of you may times,
>KBW > but you've never answered.
>
>
>KBW > By your own standards, you've admitted
>KBW > your claim
>
>My claim? Yours.
You used to claim I altered the page. Now you claim I did not.
Which one is the lie, Greg?
>
>Gonna deny all of your whining about
>your alleged racist stalker?
I've done no such whining.
>
>KBW > that Dr. Rabbi Daniel
>KBW > "Doc Savage" Goldblum is a racist was
>KBW > and is nothing more than a drug inspired lie.
>
>It was YOUR lie, I think.
You're the one who claims he's a racist. He has dropped hints
that may lead one to wonder, but you've made the FACT CLAIM that he
is. I've yet to see anything that would support, let alone prove, the
FACT CLAIM you present that he is.
Please prove your FACT CLAIM, or admit it's a lie.
>
>It's funny how you present your claims as my own.
I do no such thing.
You've been exposed doing just that sort of thing a few times.
Heck, I've exposed your use of the deception.
>
>Typical Willsian circular gibberish.
You have the oddest names for the truth.
>
>KBW > Doesn't it suck when your own standards
>KBW > are used against you?
>KBW > If you feel my using your own standards
>KBW > against you is in some way unfair,
>
>Parthological ""logic"" based on fallacy.
Double quotation marks still mean nothing at all.
>
>KBW > perhaps you should reconsider
>KBW > DEMANDING they be used with
>KBW > others.
>
>G > Kent once claimed that one of his buddies
>G > ""assigned"" him the name.
>
>KBW > Double quotation marks still mean
>KBW > nothing at all.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes
>
>Writers use scare quotes for a variety of reasons. When the enclosed
>text is a quotation from another source, scare quotes may indicate
>that the writer does not accept the usage of the phrase (or the phrase
>itself)[3], that the writer feels its use is potentially ironic, or
>that the writer feels it is a misnomer. This meaning may serve to
>distance the writer from the quoted content.
>
And as I already PROVED a few days ago, scare quotes consist of
single quotation marks.
Of course, if you intended your double quotation marks to equal
scare quotes, you would have said so months ago when I asked. You
recommended I ask an ESL teacher. When it was shown your double
quotes have NO meaning at all, you quickly tried to claim you mean
them as scare quotes.
I doubt anyone is buying your deception.
>
>KBW > That aside, it was given as a joke.
>KBW > A truth I explained long ago.
>KBW > You may recall how I stated,
>KBW > "I'm the Kent Dorfman of the '90s!"
>KBW > Sadly, your admitted use and abuse
>KBW > of illegal drugs (unless that was
>KBW > also one of your lies -- if so, please
>KBW > explain the motivation behind it) has
>KBW > impaired your memory.
>
>Got a LINK?
Failure to address the point raised is noted.
That aside, I do have a link. And I'll post it, and many other
links, as soon as you post the picture of David dressed as a Nazi and
the one of me on a pony, or admit you've been lying about the
existence of both the whole time.
>
>I didn't know of you in the 90's.
I've never claimed you did. It's Yukkie who claims you and I
have known each other since 1990.
Is your Fregoli acting up again?
>
>Kent Wills classic deception B - illegal drugs
You admitted to using and abusing them. Had you meant something
else, or had you misunderstood what I was asking, you would have
stated so shortly after I pointed out your admission.
You admitted you use and abuse illegal drugs and you're stuck
with it.
>
>
>G > Kent also once claimed that one of his buddies
>G > faked up the records on the courts web site
>G > just to poke fun at him or something.
>
>KBW > I made no such claim.
>
>> >The fact that his stuff appears on THREE
>> >different official state records web sites
>> >and the official printed caselaw books didn't
>> >slow him down for awhile.
>>
>KBW > There is no such thing to be found in any case law books.
>
>IN PRINTED LAW BOOKS - Legal Citation
So it's not a case law book, but a legal citation book?
Please pick a lie and stick with it.
>West's North Western Reporter
>Second Series
>A Unit of the National Reporter System
>Volume 696 N.W.2d
>
>Cite as 696 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 2005)
>
>G >Kent and Moe actually tried to sell the story
>G > that the online state court, state supreme court
>G > and state corrections records were all faked.
>
>KBW > That's not the claim either of us presented.
>KBW > What is the SPECIFIC reason you are so unable to be honest?
>
>The original subject was your self deleting posts.
Which you changed.
And they aren't deleted. Google still has them. The few posts
of mine that are X-No-Archive: yes simply aren't available to the
public after a certain amount of time.
They are also available to anyone with a good reader (I recommend
Agent, though there are other good ones out there) and a good server
for months, sometimes years later.
Also, not all archive services honor the X-No-Archive: yes
stipulation.
Once again you allow me the chance to prove Yukkie a liar and you
an ignorant fool.
>
>G > He had Moe arguing that line with him for
>G > a long time, but it gradually faded and
>G > they replaced their argument into saying that
>G > he isn't Kent Bradley Wills at all.
>
>KBW > You've admitted I'm not.
>
>Lie.
You claimed the information is about some other Kent Wills.
In truth, you've combined the information from a few people with
the name Kent Wills. Whereas your mental retardation isn't an act (no
one can act that well), you believe they are all the same person.
>
>Pathological pretense that you don't
>know what scare quotes mean, Kent?
I know what they mean. You don't use them.
>
>Or just pretzel logic?
You may address your psychological NEED to be dishonest by any
term that makes you comfortable.
>
>G > If it wasn't him then why claim the records were doctored?
>
>KBW > You wouldn't understand honesty. And this is truly sad.
>
>You are Kent Bradley Wills, DOB Jan 8, 1969!
But you've claimed I am not.
>
>G > Kent Web Mastered a really old BIRTHDAY web page
>G > and listed his own birthday as January 8th.
>
>KBW > Liar.
>
>G > A mysterious new web master mysteriously
>G > removed Kent's listing and Kent crowed.
>
>KBW > I was always the webmaster of the page.
>KBW > Right up until the day the domain registration
>KBW > expired. Even though the domain no longer
>KBW > existed, a truth that was easy to verify,
>KBW > you still were compelled to LIE and
>KBW > claim the domain and page were up
>KBW > and running.
>
>I cut and pasted the birthday list into usenet.
You C&P an edited version. I kept linking to the page so that
anyone with an interest could verify that for themselves.
You then claimed I altered the page. Of course, now you're
claiming it was untouched.
The page is gone now. It was lost when the domain registration
expired. I expect the folks at pcpages (the domain is back up) have
it archived somewhere, but I'm too lazy to get it put back up.
>
>G > If you look at public records showing past
>G > cities that Kent, his sister or his parents lived at,
>G > and compare them with what Kent has
>G > posted, the matches are amazing.
>
>KBW > When have my parents and/or sisters
>KBW > lived in Chicago? Please prove my
>KBW > parents and/or sisters live, or lived,
>KBW > in the town where I currently live.
>
>KBW > Here's a hint as to the current town:
>KBW > It's NOT any of the places you've
>KBW > claimed to PROVE I live via the phone book.
>
>G > Then there's the logic and style comparison.
>G > In the IA Supreme Court ruling you can see that
>G > his appeal was SO stupid that you'd think the
>G > attorney would be disbarred for even filing it!
>
>KBW > So now you claim an attorney argued it.
>KBW > Was someone finally able to penetrate your drug induced haze and
>KBW > get you to understand the LIES you were posting showed the
>defendant
>KBW > didn't argue the appeal? You claimed, for over a year, that
>Kent
>KBW > Wills argued it.
>
>Attorney is YOUR representative.
Could you write that with PROPER grammar, please?
>
>KBW > You've painted yourself into a metaphorical
>KBW > corner. You either LIED when you claimed
>KBW > Kent presented arguments, or you are lying
>KBW > now when you claim it was an attorney.
>
>Attorney is YOUR representative.
>Missing middle deception. It's BOTH, not either/or.
You've claimed it was Kent Wills, then his attorney. You've
never allowed for both, until now.
Do you think anyone is foolish enough to buy into your lies?
>
>KBW > Which do you wish to admit was the lie?
>KBW > Since both can't be true at the same
>KBW > time, one must be a lie (if either were an
>KBW > error, you would have admitted it).
>
>False dichotomy again.
>It's a classic fallacy.
>Used a lot by con artists.
Truth is rarely used by those seeking to con others. That this
simple premise escapes you does not come as a surprise.
Heck, you try to distract from the truth that the bulk of my
posts are archived, then try to con the readers into thinking I
changed the subject being discussed.
I suppose you would know just what a con artist would try, what
with your constantly trying to con people, as I've PROVED you've done
here.
You're welcome.
krp
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:sd9uj5hp8jcmnd8pa...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:33:49 -0800 (PST), Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>MASSIVE COALITION FORCE
>
> Pangborn is the one who believes there is such a thing out to get
> him.
Wills you never seem ABLE to understand that I don't believe in Moore's
MASSIVE COALITION FORCES, but he certainly does! He believes he is leading
several LARGE internet factions. His "COALITION FORCES" and he also believes
he runs the MGLF (Milwaukee General Liberation Front). I seem to recall
several others he believes he is commanding, their names escape me in the
morning. But you mistake my RIDICULE of your BEST PAL Moore about HIS
beliefs of himself as some Field Marshall leading as LARGE contingent of
troops. That's also why I make FUN of your psycho pal, for living in his
adoptive mommy's basement in his FUEHRER BUNKER, with his relief maps moving
his troops for his attacks.
You keep missing that I don't believe for a second that Moore has the
MASSIVE TROOPS that HE THINKS he has. Your pal is more than a few screws
short of a box.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:sd9uj5hp8jcmnd8pa...@4ax.com...
>> On Fri, 1 Jan 2010 15:33:49 -0800 (PST), Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>MASSIVE COALITION FORCE
>>
>> Pangborn is the one who believes there is such a thing out to get
>> him.
>
> Wills you never seem ABLE to understand that I don't believe in Moore's
>MASSIVE COALITION FORCES, but he certainly does!
No he doesn't. You alone claim there is a MASSIVE COALITION
FORCE (emphasis yours) out to get you. You accused most everyone of
being a part of it.
You may project your delusion onto others all you want and/or
need. The truth will forever remain you are the one who claimed there
is such a group out to get you.
But then, you gave your word that you would offer the proof you
claim you posses that David was adopted if he met the conditions you
set. He did so and you, being the mentally unstable simpleton you
prove yourself to be, RAN from your obligation. You frequently make
claims that end up being nothing more than your own delusions.
"Kent is NOT Kent."
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP CONsulting, acknowledging that
my name in real life is not Kent. Checking the MID will show he's
getting tired of explaining this to people.
Message-ID: <4b3b32c0$0$4973$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com>
Greegor
KBW > Pangborn is the one who believes there
KBW > is such a thing out to get him.
As evidenced by his ridicule??
Kent Wills
wrote:
>KBW > MASSIVE COALITION FORCE
You wrote that, Greg, in Message-ID:
<6d78f161-0390-49c0...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>.
Is there a specific reason you are LYING and claiming I wrote that
which you KNOW you wrote?
I believe your dishonestly claiming I wrote that which you KNOW
you wrote is due to your use and abuse of illegal drugs. I freely
acknowledge this isn't the only possible reason for your latest PROOF
that you are psychologically UNABLE to be honest, except by accident
or force.
If there is a different reason, please offer it.
>KBW > Pangborn is the one who believes there
>KBW > is such a thing out to get him.
>
>As evidenced by his ridicule??
It's not ridicule. Ken has claimed, many times, that there is
such a group out to get him. If he doesn't actually believe it, then
he has been lying all along.
Only Ken can KNOW which is the case. All anyone else can do is
expose the claim he's made.
It's true Ken has sought to make enemies of most everyone on
Usenet, but I doubt there is any organized effort to get him. It's far
more plausible than not that many of the people he's angered are
working independently to further expose him for the worthless fraud
and con man that he is.
Heck, you're supposed to be an on-line friend, yet you frequently
work to expose his pathological lying. Do you do so because you are a
part of some massive group of people?
Greegor
KBW > is such a thing out to get him.
G > As evidenced by his ridicule??
KBW > It's not ridicule. Ken has claimed, [...]
sarcasm
Kent Wills
wrote:
>KBW > Pangborn is the one who believes there
That you needed to remove the context of my post stands as
evidence, if not proof, that you don't believe your claim.
krp
> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 20:35:49 -0800 (PST), Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>KBW > MASSIVE COALITION FORCE
>
> You wrote that, Greg, in Message-ID:
> <6d78f161-0390-49c0...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>.
> Is there a specific reason you are LYING and claiming I wrote that
> which you KNOW you wrote?
> I believe your dishonestly claiming I wrote that which you KNOW
> you wrote is due to your use and abuse of illegal drugs. I freely
> acknowledge this isn't the only possible reason for your latest PROOF
> that you are psychologically UNABLE to be honest, except by accident
> or force.
> If there is a different reason, please offer it.
>
>>KBW > Pangborn is the one who believes there
>>KBW > is such a thing out to get him.
>>
>>As evidenced by his ridicule??
>
> It's not ridicule. Ken has claimed, many times, that there is
> such a group out to get him.
Bullshit. Wills. On one hand you accuse me of saying everyone is Moore and
on the other (here) you claim I believe there is a coalition led by Moore.
First the anonymous remailer posts are "almost" always Moore. As to this
MASSIVE COALITION FORCES that's your pal Moore's invention starting way back
in `1197 ,when he believed he was the "LEADER" of a MASSIVE group against
me. Then, like now, he only had a couple morons who joined in with him. In
HIS mind he was the new STORMIN NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF! He believed he was
leading this MASSIVE ORGANIZATION, he invented in his own mind, was, as they
used to say; "me myself and I," meaning several incarnations of Moore
himself which he came to believe were other people independent of the core
Moore personality.
NO, Kunt, I do NOT believe there is a "massive coalition" out to get me. I
think Moore is and what he has is largely you and Maureen. Sullivan is an
independent kook. He really has NO followers other than you two NUTS. But
MOORE believes he is leading a MASS OF TROOPS out there in his imaginary
Army. He sees himself as a brilliant military strategist. Really? He's had
since 1996 to take the hill (ME) and he's only made progress in his own mind
with his website and search engine bullshit.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:fao0k5d0hmmo9qksj...@4ax.com...
>> On Sat, 2 Jan 2010 20:35:49 -0800 (PST), Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>KBW > MASSIVE COALITION FORCE
>>
>> You wrote that, Greg, in Message-ID:
>> <6d78f161-0390-49c0...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>.
>> Is there a specific reason you are LYING and claiming I wrote that
>> which you KNOW you wrote?
>> I believe your dishonestly claiming I wrote that which you KNOW
>> you wrote is due to your use and abuse of illegal drugs. I freely
>> acknowledge this isn't the only possible reason for your latest PROOF
>> that you are psychologically UNABLE to be honest, except by accident
>> or force.
>> If there is a different reason, please offer it.
>>
>>>KBW > Pangborn is the one who believes there
>>>KBW > is such a thing out to get him.
>>>
>>>As evidenced by his ridicule??
>>
>> It's not ridicule. Ken has claimed, many times, that there is
>> such a group out to get him.
>
>Bullshit. Wills. On one hand you accuse me of saying everyone is Moore and
>on the other (here) you claim I believe there is a coalition led by Moore.
I have never accused you of claiming everyone is Moore. I have
stated, accurately so, that you believe everyone who makes use of an
anonymous remailer is David.
Care to try a different lie?
>First the anonymous remailer posts are "almost" always Moore.
According to you, everyone who uses a an anonymous remailer is
him. Even when I point out that I have first hand knowledge that one
was not (I was sent the post, from the author, about an hour before he
posted), you still DEMAND that David was the sender.
>As to this
>MASSIVE COALITION FORCES that's your pal Moore's invention starting way back
>in `1197 ,
I doubt very much he was around in 1197.
>when he believed he was the "LEADER" of a MASSIVE group against
>me. Then, like now, he only had a couple morons who joined in with him. In
If we are morons, please describe how does it feel to have morons
expose you for the uneducated, lying con man you are.
I'm waiting...
>HIS mind he was the new STORMIN NORMAN SCHWARZKOPF! He believed he was
>leading this MASSIVE ORGANIZATION, he invented in his own mind, was, as they
>used to say; "me myself and I," meaning several incarnations of Moore
>himself which he came to believe were other people independent of the core
>Moore personality.
If each of the people who use anonymous remailers are Moore,
prove it. You can't because your claim isn't true.
I've already explained that I know one person isn't Moore, unless
David is older than you claim and lives in Wisconsin, in direct
contrast to your dishonest claim that he lives in Calumet City.
>
>NO, Kunt, I do NOT believe there is a "massive coalition" out to get me.
Yet your paranoia DEMANDS you whine about it frequently.
>I
>think Moore is and what he has is largely you and Maureen.
If I understand you correctly, three people are able to expose
you for the mentally unbalanced fraud and con man you are.
>Sullivan is an
>independent kook. He really has NO followers other than you two NUTS.
So now Moe and I are following Dan and not David?
Why can't you maintain your lie for more than a single sentence?
>But
>MOORE believes he is leading a MASS OF TROOPS out there in his imaginary
>Army.
I've not seen him make such a claim.
I have seen MANY posts from you whining about the phantom group
trying to get you.
>He sees himself as a brilliant military strategist. Really? He's had
>since 1996 to take the hill (ME) and he's only made progress in his own mind
>with his website and search engine bullshit.
>
So the, how's the trial consulting business going these days?
Go ahead and lie. I'm sure everyone reading would like to start
of 2010 with a giant group laugh at your expense. I can almost hear
the applause, feet stomping, and guffawing even now as folks read this
and try to anticipate which idiotic claim you'll make and whether it
will be for diversion by going on in another direction, or just a
common run of the mill Kenneth Robert Pangborn lie.
Look up in the sky, the Moore is falling. LOL
Greegor
Yumhuyk > postings against him? Like his parole officer?
Kent, Are you under the supervision of a Parole Officer AGAIN?
http://s212.photobucket.com/albums/cc127/kwills_photo/
Kent Bradley Wills AKA Compuelf DOB Jan 8 1969 Felony Garage Burglar
used teen as accomplice
Kent routinely says opponents are
A. Drunks
B. Druggies
C. Mentally Ill
D. Already conceded to Kent's argument
E. Question was already asked and answered ( ? )
It's as if Kent is an automation that is WAY too simple.
Kent's Appeal
IN PRINTED LAW BOOKS
West's North Western Reporter
Second Series
A Unit of the National Reporter System
Volume 696 N.W.2d
Cite as 696 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 2005)
Kent's Appeal
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
http://www.assess.co.polk.ia.us/cgi-bin/seephoto/photosize.cgi?gp=802415452029&size=Large
Notice that KENT made claims re sale of 202 NW College apartment
building
That's geoparcel gp=802415452029
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
( Step by step instructions elsewhere with name Kent B Wills )
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
http://www.rogersgis.com/zoom/Residential_Development/indexfull.htm
http://www.arcountydata.com/county.asp?county=Benton
TWO of Kent Wills' usenet newsgroup identities:
Do It Yourself Instructions to look up Kent's record
Iowa Department of Corrections records for Kent
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
Name Kent Bradley Wills [ As Collected Sept 13, 2009 ]
Offender Number 1155768
Sex M
Birth Date 01/08/1969
Age 40
Location
Offense
County Of Commitment
Commitment Date
Duration
TDD/SDD *
* TDD = Tentative Discharge Date
* SDD = Supervision Discharge Date
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 12/16/2008
Probation C Felony Polk 12/16/2008
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 11/25/2003
IN PRINTED LAW BOOKS
West's North Western Reporter
Second Series
A Unit of the National Reporter System
Volume 696 N.W.2d
Cite as 696 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 2005)
Kent's Appeal
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
WIGGINS, Justice.
II. Scope of Review.
III. Analysis.
Id. § 702.12.
(Emphasis added.)
IV. Disposition.
AFFIRMED.
---------------------------------
GeoParcel 8024-15-452-029 District/Parcel 181/00392-048-000
[ As Collected Sept 13, 2009 ]
Seller: WILLS, FRED A. & JANET R.
Buyer: THE SWEENEY REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST
A Larger photo:
http://www.assess.co.polk.ia.us/cgi-bin/seephoto/photosize.cgi?gp=802415452029&size=Large
Check this out!
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
Under the "Filings" tab:
Under the "Financial" Tab:
Summary Orig Paid Due
COSTS 98.60 31.00 67.60
FINE 0.00 0.00 0.00
SURCHARGE 0.00 0.00 0.00
RESTITUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00
Kent Wills
wrote:
>Yumhuyk > Is he afraid of someone using his USENET
>Yumhuyk > postings against him? Like his parole officer?
>
>Kent, Are you under the supervision of a Parole Officer AGAIN?
Your question implies I've been under such in the past. Please
provide any and all evidence that I've ever been on parole. That
would be a win for you.
Failing to provide any and all evidence will be a tactic
admission, by your own standards, that your use and abuse of illegal
drugs has forced you to lie.
The choice is yours.
--a true story
Summary Orig Paid Due
COSTS 9200.00 850.00 8350.00
FINE 500.00 500.00 0.00
SURCHARGE 150.00 150.00 0.00
RESTITUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00