Kent's ""Fake ID"" makes no sense
Greegor
Moe > Silence me, Tjab by showing me
Moe > scanned copies of the actual court
Moe > documents at the courthouse. You
Moe > said you actually saw the court
Moe > documents yourself. Shall I get the
Moe > google URL of YOUR OWN WORDS,
Moe > Tjab, or are you going to deny you
Moe > actually posted that?
tjab > Yes, and yes, liar.
Moe, As for silencing you by proving that the
Supreme Court of Iowa did not lie, I'd like
to know why you think that is reasonable.
Considering Kent has claimed that he ""set up""
Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8 1969 as a false
identity for himself, WHY do you think that
the burden of proof rests with people who
say he IS Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8 1969?
Either way, it Kent's problem.
If as he claims, it's a FAKE ID, then it's
certainly not my fault.
In the real world, it's easy to see why the
Garage Burglary Felon would want to deny it.
Why would somebody adopt the FAKE ID of
a Garage Burglary Felon at all?
Hypothetically, If it is a FAKE ID that
Kent so carefully set up over YEARS,
then why is he now trying to reverse it?
Why would somebody work SO HARD and for
years to create a FAKE ID and then try to reverse it?
Who should carry the burden of proof in that case?
Hypothetically, If Kent really made a FAKE ID for
himself then why isn't he happy to live with it?
Whose problem would that be?
If that were the case, then Who is to blame?
Dan Sullivan
Greegor
Dan Sullivan
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
TNKev
[...]
> Why would somebody work SO HARD and for
> years to create a FAKE ID and then try to reverse it?
years? I think it take all of 3 seconds at the most to type "Kent Wills"
idiot.
>
> Who should carry the burden of proof in that case?
case? what case?
>
> Hypothetically, If Kent really made a FAKE ID for
> himself then why isn't he happy to live with it?
he has had the name for like 10 years or better,if he wasn't happy with
it I think he would change it.
>
> Whose problem would that be?
it looks to me (and I am sure other readers would agree) that is you
that has a problem greegor.
>
> If that were the case, then Who is to blame?
to blame for what simpleton?
the stalking of Kent and members of alt.friends? that would be *YOU*
stalker.
Greegor
> Greegor wrote:
>
> [...]
>
> > Why would somebody work SO HARD and for
> > years to create a FAKE ID and then try to reverse it?
>
> years? I think it take all of 3 seconds at the most to type "Kent Wills"
>
> idiot.
It only took a little longer for the WEBMASTER to
type in a list of birthdays including his own.
So what?
G > Who should carry the burden of proof in that case?
TNK > case? what case?
Is this gonna be like the "singular they" confusion again Kev?
G > Hypothetically, If Kent really made a FAKE ID for
G > himself then why isn't he happy to live with it?
TNK > he has had the name for like 10
TNK > years or better,if he wasn't happy
TNK > with it I think he would change it.
Can he change this too?
TNK > Whose problem would that be?
TNK > it looks to me (and I am sure other
TNK > readers would agree) that is you
TNK > that has a problem greegor.
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/0f290b9d168728ca
Why would somebody work SO HARD and for
years to create a FAKE ID and then try to reverse it?
Who should carry the burden of proof in that case?
Hypothetically, If Kent really made a FAKE ID for
himself then why isn't he happy to live with it?
Whose problem would that be?
If that were the case, then Who is to blame?
TNK > to blame for what simpleton?
The hypothetical FAKE ID.
TNK > the stalking of Kent and members of
TNK > alt.friends? that would be *YOU*
TNK >
TNK > stalker.
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
Dan Sullivan
TNKev
> On Apr 9, 10:31 am, TNKev <TNKev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Greegor wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>> Why would somebody work SO HARD and for
>>> years to create a FAKE ID and then try to reverse it?
>> years? I think it take all of 3 seconds at the most to type "Kent Wills"
>>
>> idiot.
>
> It only took a little longer for the WEBMASTER to
> type in a list of birthdays including his own.
> So what?
>
> G > Who should carry the burden of proof in that case?
>
> TNK > case? what case?
>
> Is this gonna be like the "singular they" confusion again Kev?
you are the only one that's confused.
why are you stalking the people of alt.friends?
>
> G > Hypothetically, If Kent really made a FAKE ID for
> G > himself then why isn't he happy to live with it?
>
> TNK > he has had the name for like 10
> TNK > years or better,if he wasn't happy
> TNK > with it I think he would change it.
>
> Can he change this too?
I don't why or if he would want to.
>
> http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202
>
> TNK > Whose problem would that be?
>
> TNK > it looks to me (and I am sure other
> TNK > readers would agree) that is you
> TNK > that has a problem greegor.
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/0f290b9d168728ca
>
> Moe > Silence me, Tjab by showing me
> Moe > scanned copies of the actual court
> Moe > documents at the courthouse. You
> Moe > said you actually saw the court
> Moe > documents yourself. Shall I get the
> Moe > google URL of YOUR OWN WORDS,
> Moe > Tjab, or are you going to deny you
> Moe > actually posted that?
>
> tjab > Yes, and yes, liar.
>
> Moe, As for silencing you by proving that the
> Supreme Court of Iowa did not lie, I'd like
> to know why you think that is reasonable.
>
> Considering Kent has claimed that he ""set up""
> Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8 1969 as a false
> identity for himself, WHY do you think that
> the burden of proof rests with people who
> say he IS Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8 1969?
>
> Either way, it Kent's problem.
It's you that has a problem with Kent's nym.
>
> If as he claims, it's a FAKE ID, then it's
> certainly not my fault.
you say that as though he has a driver's license under his usenet nym.
and you having a bug up your ass about it *is* your fault.
>
> In the real world, it's easy to see why the
> Garage Burglary Felon would want to deny it.
maybe the garage burglary felon will one day come to usenet and tell you.
>
> Why would somebody adopt the FAKE ID of
> a Garage Burglary Felon at all?
Kent had the nym before the alleged crime took place.
>
> Hypothetically, If it is a FAKE ID that
> Kent so carefully set up over YEARS,
> then why is he now trying to reverse it?
reverse what? has he been posting as slliW tneK?
>
> Why would somebody work SO HARD and for
> years to create a FAKE ID and then try to reverse it?
>
> Who should carry the burden of proof in that case?
>
> Hypothetically, If Kent really made a FAKE ID for
> himself then why isn't he happy to live with it?
>
> Whose problem would that be?
>
> If that were the case, then Who is to blame?
>
> TNK > to blame for what simpleton?
>
> The hypothetical FAKE ID.
>
> TNK > the stalking of Kent and members of
> TNK > alt.friends? that would be *YOU*
> TNK >
> TNK > stalker.
>
stalker.
Greegor
Moe > Silence me, Tjab by showing me
Moe > scanned copies of the actual court
Moe > documents at the courthouse. You
Moe > said you actually saw the court
Moe > documents yourself. Shall I get the
Moe > google URL of YOUR OWN WORDS,
Moe > Tjab, or are you going to deny you
Moe > actually posted that?
tjab > Yes, and yes, liar.
Moe, As for silencing you by proving that the
Supreme Court of Iowa did not lie, I'd like
to know why you think that is reasonable.
Considering Kent has claimed that he ""set up""
Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8 1969 as a false
identity for himself, WHY do you think that
the burden of proof rests with people who
say he IS Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8 1969?
Either way, it Kent's problem.
If as he claims, it's a FAKE ID, then it's
certainly not my fault.
In the real world, it's easy to see why the
Garage Burglary Felon would want to deny it.
Why would somebody adopt the FAKE ID of
a Garage Burglary Felon at all?
Hypothetically, If it is a FAKE ID that
Kent so carefully set up over YEARS,
then why is he now trying to reverse it?
Why would somebody work SO HARD and for
years to create a FAKE ID and then try to reverse it?
Who should carry the burden of proof in that case?
Hypothetically, If Kent really made a FAKE ID for
himself then why isn't he happy to live with it?
Whose problem would that be?
If that were the case, then Who is to blame?
TNK > why are you stalking the people of alt.friends?
I'm not.
Got proof? Link / quote?
TNK > you say that as though he has a driver's license under his
usenet nym.
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp?search=+Kent+Wills+#_1
TNK > maybe the garage burglary felon will one day come to usenet and
tell you.
Anonymous socks for Kent Wills are not proof.
_ Prof. Jonez _
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/0f290b9d168728ca
>
> Moe > Silence me, Tjab by showing me
> Moe > scanned copies of the actual court
> Moe > documents at the courthouse. You
> Moe > said you actually saw the court
> Moe > documents yourself. Shall I get the
> Moe > google URL of YOUR OWN WORDS,
> Moe > Tjab, or are you going to deny you
> Moe > actually posted that?
>
> tjab > Yes, and yes, liar.
>
> Moe, As for silencing you by proving that the
> Supreme Court of Iowa did not lie, I'd like
> to know why you think that is reasonable.
>
> Considering Kent has claimed that he ""set up""
> Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8 1969 as a false
> identity for himself, WHY do you think that
> the burden of proof rests with people who
> say he IS Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8 1969?
>
> Either way, it Kent's problem.
>
> If as he claims, it's a FAKE ID, then it's
> certainly not my fault.
Kent also claims it is his real identity, but
that the Felony Record is something he fabricated
and had deliberately inserted into the Iowa criminal
records database(s).
Why of Kent's lies should anyone believe?
dragonsgirl
"Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:5e1f72bd-a907-442f...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
TNK > case? what case?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/0f290b9d168728ca
*****That is really NOT what he claims.
You should try to understand what you read.
DOB Jan 8 1969 as a false
identity for himself, WHY do you think that
the burden of proof rests with people who
say he IS Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8 1969?
Either way, it Kent's problem.
If as he claims, it's a FAKE ID, then it's
certainly not my fault.
***And it's certainly not YOUR fault that you harass him either, is it?
In the real world, it's easy to see why the
Garage Burglary Felon would want to deny it.
Why would somebody adopt the FAKE ID of
a Garage Burglary Felon at all?
****I thought we went over this before.
Kent was using the name before the name was associated with a court case.
Hypothetically, If it is a FAKE ID that
Kent so carefully set up over YEARS,
then why is he now trying to reverse it?
***He is? Where?
Why would somebody work SO HARD and for
years to create a FAKE ID and then try to reverse it?
****Who has to 'work' at 'creating' a fake ID?
It's called a NYM...we all have them...or, most of us do.
It's pretty easy, really, you just thinking up something and you type it and
VIOLA, there it is.
No work to it.
Who should carry the burden of proof in that case?
Hypothetically, If Kent really made a FAKE ID for
himself then why isn't he happy to live with it?
Whose problem would that be?
If that were the case, then Who is to blame?
TNK > to blame for what simpleton?
The hypothetical FAKE ID.
****No one really disputes who is responsible for the ID.
It's your stalking that is in dispute.
You think you aren't a stalker.
Your persistent look ups and posting prove different.
You stalk. That's the issue.
BTW...when you want to piss and moan about how Kane, et al, took over this
newsgroup and destroyed it you should really think hard about whether or not
you are projecting.
dragonsgirl
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> Moe > Silence me, Tjab by showing me
> Moe > scanned copies of the actual court
> Moe > documents at the courthouse. You
> Moe > said you actually saw the court
> Moe > documents yourself. Shall I get the
> Moe > google URL of YOUR OWN WORDS,
> Moe > Tjab, or are you going to deny you
> Moe > actually posted that?
>
> tjab > Yes, and yes, liar.
>
> Moe, As for silencing you by proving that the
> Supreme Court of Iowa did not lie, I'd like
> to know why you think that is reasonable.
>
> Considering Kent has claimed that he ""set up""
> Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8 1969 as a false
> identity for himself, WHY do you think that
> the burden of proof rests with people who
> say he IS Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8 1969?
>
> Either way, it Kent's problem.
>
> If as he claims, it's a FAKE ID, then it's
> certainly not my fault.
Simple question, Greg. Why does it matter to you so much?
Kent Wills
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/0f290b9d168728ca
>
> Moe > Silence me, Tjab by showing me
> Moe > scanned copies of the actual court
> Moe > documents at the courthouse. You
> Moe > said you actually saw the court
> Moe > documents yourself. Shall I get the
> Moe > google URL of YOUR OWN WORDS,
> Moe > Tjab, or are you going to deny you
> Moe > actually posted that?
>
> tjab > Yes, and yes, liar.
Once again tjab is lying.
He did claim to have seen the original documents in a thread about the
original documents located at the courthouse.
>
> Moe, As for silencing you by proving that the
> Supreme Court of Iowa did not lie, I'd like
> to know why you think that is reasonable.
Why do you think hanging out in the bathroom while a six-year-old girl
is showierng is reasonable?
Why do you think forcing a six-year-old to go dumpster diving is
reasonable?
Why do you think locking a six-year-old girl out of the house with no
coat or shoes in the middle of an Iowa winter is reasonable?
>
> Considering Kent has claimed that he ""set up""
> Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8 1969 as a false
> identity for himself, WHY do you think that
> the burden of proof rests with people who
> say he IS Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8 1969?
>
> Either way, it Kent's problem.
Why? My life hasn't changed.
>
> If as he claims, it's a FAKE ID, then it's
> certainly not my fault.
When has anyone claimed it is?
Is there a specific reason you try to defend yourself against charges
that were never made? Is it so that you can continue to dishonestly claim
to be a victim?
>
> In the real world, it's easy to see why the
> Garage Burglary Felon would want to deny it.
>
> Why would somebody adopt the FAKE ID of
> a Garage Burglary Felon at all?
I'll try, once again, to dumb it down to your level.
To trap a stalker. And it worked.
>
> Hypothetically, If it is a FAKE ID that
> Kent so carefully set up over YEARS,
> then why is he now trying to reverse it?
Over years?
It was set up over a matter of seconds, dullard. I wasn't even there
when the Kent name was chosen.
>
> Why would somebody work SO HARD and for
> years to create a FAKE ID and then try to reverse it?
Only you think the time it takes to enter four letters (a few seconds)
would equate to years.
>
> Who should carry the burden of proof in that case?
The one trying to prove something.
In this instance, that would be you.
>
> Hypothetically, If Kent really made a FAKE ID for
> himself then why isn't he happy to live with it?
I'm having a rather happy life.
Well, the sun burn I got while in Hawaii didn't make me real happy.
But other than that, my life is pretty good.
>
> Whose problem would that be?
Must be yours, since you're the one complaining about it.
>
> If that were the case, then Who is to blame?
That your life sucks will most probably be your fault. You made the
choices and committed the acts that lead to the life you have.
Once again I ask, why are you stalking and harassing past and current
members of alt.friends? You've only managed to play the avoidance game when
I've asked. Please answer the question now.
--
"Jek rat, jek jakha, jek dji, jek porh, jek baht."
Romani: [We are of the] Same blood, the same eyes,
the same soul, the same belly, and of one happiness.
John "C"
> I love to spam 'alt.support.child-protective-services'
>
>(บท.ธ(จ*ท.ธ ธ.ท*จ)ธ.ทบ)
> ซ.ทฐKUNTฐท.ป
>(ธ.ทบ(ธ.ทจ* *จท.ธ)บท.ธ)
Pervert!
Number One
Kent Wills
On Apr 9, 10:31 am, TNKev <TNKev...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Greegor wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>> > Why would somebody work SO HARD and for
>> > years to create a FAKE ID and then try to reverse it?
>>
>> years? I think it take all of 3 seconds at the most to type "Kent Wills"
>>
>> idiot.
>
>It only took a little longer for the WEBMASTER to
>type in a list of birthdays including his own.
I have no idea how long it took Vijay to write out all the birthdays.
It took less than five seconds for me to C&P them and add my own when I took
over.
>So what?
Yes, Greg. So what does the birthdates of past and current members of
alt.friends have to do with anything? Why, exactly, are you stalking past
and current members of alt.friends?
>
>G > Who should carry the burden of proof in that case?
>
>TNK > case? what case?
>
>Is this gonna be like the "singular they" confusion again Kev?
>
What singular they?
Oh, do you mean when I mentioned that I ask a friend (singular) who is
a retired Rabbi (still singular) and you called him "them"?
>G > Hypothetically, If Kent really made a FAKE ID for
>G > himself then why isn't he happy to live with it?
>
>TNK > he has had the name for like 10
>TNK > years or better,if he wasn't happy
>TNK > with it I think he would change it.
>
>Can he change this too?
>
>http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202.asp?search=+Kent+Wills+#_1
Yes.
>
>TNK > Whose problem would that be?
Why are you claiming Kevin wrote that which YOU wrote?
How deeply rooted is your psychological NEED to lie?
>
>TNK > it looks to me (and I am sure other
>TNK > readers would agree) that is you
>TNK > that has a problem greegor.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/0f290b9d168728ca
>
I fail to see what relevance tjab's latest misadventure with truth has
to do with anything.
[snip of stuff Greg C&P from another of his posts]
>
>If that were the case, then Who is to blame?
>
>TNK > to blame for what simpleton?
>
>The hypothetical FAKE ID.
Who is assigning blame?
>
>TNK > the stalking of Kent and members of
>TNK > alt.friends? that would be *YOU*
>TNK >
>TNK > stalker.
Greg, why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
alt.friends?
Kent Wills
"dragonsgirl" <drago...@sbcglobal.net> wrote in message
news:ICeLj.7900$V14....@nlpi070.nbdc.sbc.com...
[...]
>>
>> Either way, it Kent's problem.
>>
>> If as he claims, it's a FAKE ID, then it's
>> certainly not my fault.
>
> Simple question, Greg. Why does it matter to you so much?
>
Because I hold Greg to the same standards he holds to others. He
doesn't like that one bit.
Kent Wills
[snips for brevity]
>
> Considering Kent has claimed that he ""set up""
> Kent Bradley Wills
>
> *****That is really NOT what he claims.
> You should try to understand what you read.
>
Greg's view is consistent with that of most eight to nine year olds.
They often read what they want into things, then get upset when their error
is shown.
[...]
>
> If as he claims, it's a FAKE ID, then it's
> certainly not my fault.
>
> ***And it's certainly not YOUR fault that you harass him either, is it?
He's stalking AND harassing. Not just me. Past and current members of
alt.friends as well.
>
>
> In the real world, it's easy to see why the
> Garage Burglary Felon would want to deny it.
>
> Why would somebody adopt the FAKE ID of
> a Garage Burglary Felon at all?
>
> ****I thought we went over this before.
> Kent was using the name before the name was associated with a court case.
Since 1993, actually. That's when the "B" Prodigy account was set up
for me.
Given the amount of time Greg has spend searching out my old posts, I'm
certain he's aware of this. Sadly, he's not able to be honest about it.
>
>
> Hypothetically, If it is a FAKE ID that
> Kent so carefully set up over YEARS,
> then why is he now trying to reverse it?
>
> ***He is? Where?
>
Greg is lying, of course. If I wanted to alter it in any way, it would
be realy easy to do. I could post with my real first name, or make up a new
one.
>
> Why would somebody work SO HARD and for
> years to create a FAKE ID and then try to reverse it?
>
> ****Who has to 'work' at 'creating' a fake ID?
> It's called a NYM...we all have them...or, most of us do.
> It's pretty easy, really, you just thinking up something and you type it
> and VIOLA, there it is.
> No work to it.
In my case, I didn't have to do any work. It was chosen for me. A
joke that only two people understood. And it wasn't all that funny anyway.
[...]
>
> If that were the case, then Who is to blame?
>
> TNK > to blame for what simpleton?
>
> The hypothetical FAKE ID.
>
> ****No one really disputes who is responsible for the ID.
> It's your stalking that is in dispute.
No it's not. Greg stalks people.
He may have been able to intimidate people in the past with his
stalking, but he'll soon learn he can't intimidate me.
> You think you aren't a stalker.
> Your persistent look ups and posting prove different.
> You stalk. That's the issue.
> BTW...when you want to piss and moan about how Kane, et al, took over this
> newsgroup and destroyed it you should really think hard about whether or
> not you are projecting.
Greg wouldn't be the first to try and destroy alt.friends. Doc failed,
and he put in one heck of an effort.
He then sent Peter Hucker. He tried, but he also failed.
We get the odd troll now and again who will try to destroy the group.
Everyone has failed every time.
Kent Wills
"_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote in message
news:6658m4F...@mid.individual.net...
[...]
>>
>> If as he claims, it's a FAKE ID, then it's
>> certainly not my fault.
>
> Kent also claims it is his real identity, but
Liar.
> that the Felony Record is something he fabricated
> and had deliberately inserted into the Iowa criminal
> records database(s).
>
> Why of Kent's lies should anyone believe?
>
Could you write that again? In English?
John "C"
John "C"
John "C"
John "C"
TNKev
stalker.
TNKev
[...]
TNKev
[...]
Peter Hucker
>> If that were the case, then Who is to blame?
>>
>> TNK > to blame for what simpleton?
>>
>> The hypothetical FAKE ID.
>>
>> ****No one really disputes who is responsible for the ID.
>> It's your stalking that is in dispute.
>
> No it's not. Greg stalks people.
> He may have been able to intimidate people in the past with his
> stalking, but he'll soon learn he can't intimidate me.
>
>> You think you aren't a stalker.
>> Your persistent look ups and posting prove different.
>> You stalk. That's the issue.
>> BTW...when you want to piss and moan about how Kane, et al, took over this
>> newsgroup and destroyed it you should really think hard about whether or
>> not you are projecting.
>
> Greg wouldn't be the first to try and destroy alt.friends. Doc failed,
> and he put in one heck of an effort.
> He then sent Peter Hucker. He tried, but he also failed.
Rubbish. I just don't know whether to believe you or Doc.
> We get the odd troll now and again who will try to destroy the group.
> Everyone has failed every time.
--
This message has been brought to you by nuclear power. Please don't tell the neighbours.
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com
_\/
.-'.'`)
.-' .'
. .-' `-. __\/
\. . |, _.-' -:````) _.-'.'``)
\`. |\ | \.-_. `._ _.-' .'`
__) )__\ |! )/ \_. _.-' `.
_.-'__`-' =`:' /.' / | _.-' -:`````)
__.--' ( (@> )) = \ ^ `'. |_. .-' `.
: @ `^^^ == \ ^ `. |< `.
VvvvvvvvVvvvv) = ; ^ ;_/ : -:``````)
(^^^^^^^^^^= == | ; \. : `.
(( `-----------. == | ^ ;_/ : `.
/\ /== / : \. : _..--``````)
__\ \_ ; == / ^ :_/ : `.
> <__ _```---.._/ ====/ ^ : \. : `.
/ / `._ ^ ;== / ^ :/ . `.
\/ (( `._ / === / ^ `.' _.--`````)
(( /\ ;=== / ^ .' `.
__\ \_ : === | ^ / `.
>><__ _``--...__.-' ^ / ^ `.
/ / `._ ^ .' .--`````) .--..
\/ :=`--...____.-' ^ .___.-'| .' .--.`. (
(( | === \ `.|__. ; ^: `.' )
: ==== \ ^ ^ `. | ; `; `../__
.-'\==== \ . ^ `.|___. ;^ `; \
.-' : === \.-' ^ `. | ; ^ `; )
.-' ^ \==== .-' ^ `.|___. ; ; (
.-' ^ :=.-' ^ `. | ; ;
.' ^ .-' ^ ^ ;_/__. ; ^ ;
: ^ ^ .-' ^ ^ ; ; | ; ;
: ^ .-' ^ ^ ^ _.-' ^ ;_/ ; ^ ;
: ^ .' _.-" ^ ; \. ; ^ ;
`. ^ : ^ ^ ^__.--" ;_/ ; ;
`.^ : __.--"\ ^ ^ ; \ ; ^ ;
`-.: ^___.---"\ === \ ^ ;_/' ^ ;
``.^ `. `\=== \ ^ ^ ^ ;
`. ^ `. `-. ==\ ^ ;
_`-._ `. `\= \ ^ ^ ;
__..--'' _`-._^ `. `-.`\ ^ ^ ;
(-(-(-(-(--'' `-._ ^ `. `\`\ ^ .'
__..---'' `._ `-. ^ ^ ^ .'
__..---'' ___....---'`-`) `---...____..---'
(-(-(-(-(---'' '
Greegor
KW > alt.friends. Doc failed, and he put in one
KW > heck of an effort. He then sent Peter Hucker.
KW > He tried, but he also failed.
PH > Rubbish. I just don't know whether to believe you or Doc.
Uh Oh! Trouble in Wills World?
Dan Sullivan
Greegor
Moe > Silence me, Tjab by showing me
Moe > scanned copies of the actual court
Moe > documents at the courthouse. You
Moe > said you actually saw the court
Moe > documents yourself. Shall I get the
Moe > google URL of YOUR OWN WORDS,
Moe > Tjab, or are you going to deny you
Moe > actually posted that?
tjab > Yes, and yes, liar.
Moe, As for silencing you by proving that the
Supreme Court of Iowa did not lie, I'd like
to know why you think that is reasonable.
Considering Kent has claimed that he ""set up""
Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8 1969 as a false
identity for himself, WHY do you think that
the burden of proof rests with people who
say he IS Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8 1969?
Either way, it Kent's problem.
If as he claims, it's a FAKE ID, then it's
certainly not my fault.
In the real world, it's easy to see why the
Garage Burglary Felon would want to deny it.
Why would somebody adopt the FAKE ID of
a Garage Burglary Felon at all?
Hypothetically, If it is a FAKE ID that
Kent so carefully set up over YEARS,
then why is he now trying to reverse it?
Why would somebody work SO HARD and for
years to create a FAKE ID and then try to reverse it?
Who should carry the burden of proof in that case?
Hypothetically, If Kent really made a FAKE ID for
himself then why isn't he happy to live with it?
Whose problem would that be?
If that were the case, then Who is to blame?
forevernitefan
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
You tell me, STALKER.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
http://www.boblarsonfanclub.tk/
TNKev
Why can't you just reply?
why add your stupid attributions like that?
idiot.
Peter Hucker
I saw someone do that once before. A serious poster. He had some stupid utility to do it. Meant to make it easier to see who wrote what. Yeah right.
--
This message has been brought to you by nuclear power. Please don't tell the neighbours.
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com
A brunette, a blonde, and a redhead are all in third grade. Who has the biggest breasts?
The blonde, because she's 18.
TNKev
> On Fri, 11 Apr 2008 14:24:36 +0100, TNKev <TNKe...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Greegor wrote:
>>> KW > Greg wouldn't be the first to try and destroy
>>> KW > alt.friends. Doc failed, and he put in one
>>> KW > heck of an effort. He then sent Peter Hucker.
>>> KW > He tried, but he also failed.
>>>
>>> PH > Rubbish. I just don't know whether to believe you or Doc.
>>>
>>> Uh Oh! Trouble in Wills World?
>>
>> Why can't you just reply?
>>
>> why add your stupid attributions like that?
>>
>>
>> idiot.
>
> I saw someone do that once before. A serious poster. He had some stupid utility to do it. Meant to make it easier to see who wrote what. Yeah right.
>
>
Usually he snips bits of several posts and C&Ps the snippets together to
create a new post and changes the header just to screw everything
up,he could have just replied to this one without putting his stupid
attributes in,the non-stupid readers would have been able to follow it
nicely.
WebTV posters attribute like that occasionally.
Greegor
KW > alt.friends. Doc failed, and he put in one
KW > heck of an effort. He then sent Peter Hucker.
KW > He tried, but he also failed.
PH > Rubbish. I just don't know whether to believe you or Doc.
G > Uh Oh! Trouble in Wills World?
TNKev > Why can't you just reply?
TNKev > why add your stupid attributions like that?
TNKev > idiot.
PH > I saw someone do that once before.
PH > A serious poster. He had some stupid
PH > utility to do it. Meant to make it easier
PH > to see who wrote what. Yeah right.
TNK > Usually he snips bits of several posts
TNK > and C&Ps the snippets together to
TNK > create a new post and changes the
TNK > header just to screw everything up,he
TNK > could have just replied to this one
TNK > without putting his stupid attributes
TNK > in,the non-stupid readers would have
TNK > been able to follow it nicely.
TNK > WebTV posters attribute like that occasionally.
Whatever you do, don't address the issues.
Obsess about misplaced commas or
attributions, but not the actual issues.
Kent Wills
"TNKev" <TNKe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ftoghs$krc$1...@news.datemas.de...
[...]
>>
>> I saw someone do that once before. A serious poster. He had some stupid
>> utility to do it. Meant to make it easier to see who wrote what. Yeah
>> right.
>>
>>
>
>
> Usually he snips bits of several posts and C&Ps the snippets together to
> create a new post
Greg likes to change the context of posts.
>and changes the header just to screw everything up,he could have just
>replied to this one without putting his stupid attributes in,the non-stupid
>readers would have been able to follow it nicely.
But then Greg couldn't hold the delusion that he's lies are being
accepted.
> WebTV posters attribute like that occasionally.
Grumble... WebTV posters... Grumble. :)
Kent Wills
[...]
>TNK > Usually he snips bits of several posts
>TNK > and C&Ps the snippets together to
>TNK > create a new post and changes the
>TNK > header just to screw everything up,he
>TNK > could have just replied to this one
>TNK > without putting his stupid attributes
>TNK > in,the non-stupid readers would have
>TNK > been able to follow it nicely.
>TNK > WebTV posters attribute like that occasionally.
>
>Whatever you do, don't address the issues.
>Obsess about misplaced commas or
>attributions, but not the actual issues.
The issue is your complete INABILITY to be honest. I submit that Kevin
addressed that quite nicely.
John "C"
John "C"
> I love to spam 'alt.support.child-protective-services'
>
>(º·.ž(š*·.ž ž.·*š)ž.·º)
> «.·°KUNT°·.»
>(ž.·º(ž.·š* *š·.ž)º·.ž)
Pervert!
Number One
Greegor
KW > that he's lies are being accepted.
Did you pick up a severe Spanish accent Kent?
Dan Sullivan
Kent Wills
> KW > But then Greg couldn't hold the delusion
> KW > that he's lies are being accepted.
>
> Did you pick up a severe Spanish accent Kent?
Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
alt.friends? I've asked this MANY times, and you've not answered. All
you've managed to do is play the avoidance game.
tjab
>>> Greegor wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>> Why would somebody work SO HARD and for
>>>> years to create a FAKE ID and then try to reverse it?
>>>
>>> idiot.
>>
>> It only took a little longer for the WEBMASTER to
>> type in a list of birthdays including his own.
>> So what?
>>
>> G > Who should carry the burden of proof in that case?
>>
>> TNK > case? what case?
>>
>> Is this gonna be like the "singular they" confusion again Kev?
>
>you are the only one that's confused.
>
>why are you stalking the people of alt.friends?
>
>
>>
>> G > Hypothetically, If Kent really made a FAKE ID for
>> G > himself then why isn't he happy to live with it?
>>
>> TNK > he has had the name for like 10
>> TNK > years or better,if he wasn't happy
>> TNK > with it I think he would change it.
>>
>> Can he change this too?
>
>I don't why or if he would want to.
>
>>
>> http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-0202
>>
>> TNK > Whose problem would that be?
>>
>> TNK > it looks to me (and I am sure other
>> TNK > readers would agree) that is you
>> TNK > that has a problem greegor.
>>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/0f290b9d168728ca
>>
>> Moe > Silence me, Tjab by showing me
>> Moe > scanned copies of the actual court
>> Moe > documents at the courthouse. You
>> Moe > said you actually saw the court
>> Moe > documents yourself. Shall I get the
>> Moe > google URL of YOUR OWN WORDS,
>> Moe > Tjab, or are you going to deny you
>> Moe > actually posted that?
>>
>> tjab > Yes, and yes, liar.
>>
>> Moe, As for silencing you by proving that the
>> Supreme Court of Iowa did not lie, I'd like
>> to know why you think that is reasonable.
>>
>> Considering Kent has claimed that he ""set up""
>> Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8 1969 as a false
>> identity for himself, WHY do you think that
>> the burden of proof rests with people who
>> say he IS Kent Bradley Wills DOB Jan 8 1969?
>>
>> Either way, it Kent's problem.
>
>
>>
>> If as he claims, it's a FAKE ID, then it's
>> certainly not my fault.
>
If he has been able to get a license, he does have one under that name.
Reference the TSA tage and the airline ticket that he posted scans of
on the web.
tjab
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/0f290b9d168728ca
>>
>> Moe > Silence me, Tjab by showing me
>> Moe > scanned copies of the actual court
>> Moe > documents at the courthouse. You
>> Moe > said you actually saw the court
>> Moe > documents yourself. Shall I get the
>> Moe > google URL of YOUR OWN WORDS,
>> Moe > Tjab, or are you going to deny you
>> Moe > actually posted that?
>>
>> tjab > Yes, and yes, liar.
>
> He did claim to have seen the original documents in a thread about the
>original documents located at the courthouse.
What "original documents" are you talking about? Be specific. Have you seen them?
Greegor
TNKev > driver's license under his usenet nym.
tjsb > If he has been able to get a license,
tjab > he does have one under that name.
tjab >
tjab > Reference the TSA tage and the airline
tjab > ticket that he posted scans of on the web.
Well, he did mention driving without registration
and the Iowa courts show some hits for that.
tjab
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>"_ Prof. Jonez _" <the...@jonez.net> wrote in message
>news:6658m4F...@mid.individual.net...
>
>[...]
>
>>>
>>> If as he claims, it's a FAKE ID, then it's
>>> certainly not my fault.
>>
>
> Liar.
>> that the Felony Record is something he fabricated
>> and had deliberately inserted into the Iowa criminal
>> records database(s).
>> Why of Kent's lies should anyone believe?
>>
>
> Could you write that again? In English?
Common sense would suggest that Jonez meant "which of
Kent's lies should anyone believe?" But for some odd
reason that seems to have eluded you.
tjab
The truly funny thing is that he admits that was him.
TNKev
> Whatever you do, don't address the issues.
> Obsess about misplaced commas or
> attributions, but not the actual issues.
I don't take orders from anyone and I am not about to start taking
orders from an idiot like you.
stalker.
abuser.
idiot.
Peter Hucker
> On Apr 12, 12:42 am, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> zzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
[produces alarm clock]
--
This message has been brought to you by nuclear power. Please don't tell the neighbours.
http://www.petersparrots.com http://www.insanevideoclips.com http://www.petersphotos.com
For Sale: Parachute. Only used once, never opened, small stain.
TNKev
> TNKev > you say that as though he has a
> TNKev > driver's license under his usenet nym.
>
> tjsb > If he has been able to get a license,
> tjab > he does have one under that name.
> tjab >
liar.
> tjab > Reference the TSA tage and the airline
> tjab > ticket that he posted scans of on the web.
that he said was altered.reference the web page that you posted.
don't you have some studying to do boy?
>
> Well, he did mention driving without registration
> and the Iowa courts show some hits for that.
showing how you love to stalk Kent greegor? shitbag.
krp
I await SUPREME SUPREME COURT JUSTICE Kunt Wills to explain, in outline form
the major differences between the K-1 Visa issued by the United States and
the K-3 Visa. Mr. Wills as THE leading expert in the world will give us the
simple, yet definitive distinctions between the two. Following that, Mist
Wills as the world's LEADING EXPERT on Cuban immigration law will explain to
us the criteria for a Cuban national to obtain an exit visa for herself and
her children. Because of Mr. Wills exactly knowledge he can do this very
briefly for us.
He will explain IN DETAIL subsequently the relationship between the
REGULATIONS issued by the Department of State for the K-1 visa and the Cuban
Adjustment act, on which, again Kunt Wills is the LEADING EXPERT in the
nation on this area as well. He will explain conflicts of law and the legal
platform to argue each in relation to the other.
He is, just ask him, the GREATEST living expert in these fields and
offers his LEGAL OPINION to any who ask.
Kent loves to come back saying he isn't an expert. Well - his posts show
THAT FACT clearly. That has NEVER slowed the son of a bitch down from making
EXTREMELY DOGMATIC statements regarding these issues and stating them as
"ABSOLUTE FACT." Permitting absolutely NO disagreement from his strident
"OPINIONS" and showing no inclination to accept any other view. THAT - is
holding ones self out to be an EXPERT and in this case FINAL AUTHORITY
EXPERT!
- - - - - - - - -- - - - - - - - -- - - -- - - -
Dan Sullivan
krp
Okay here is the deal. The U.S. and Cuba are not real good friends. (No
shit!) Cuba is also NOT a free country. (No shit again.) The U.S. has some
pretty
fukkked up immigration laws. (No shit again!) In order to take children out
of Cuba the mother must be married under CUBAN LAW to do so.
In the United States (CONTRARY to the LEGAL OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY KUNT
WILLS) one faces the choice when romantically involved with a Cuban woman
of choosing between the K-1 Visa (Fiancé) and the K-3 Visa for a wife. Now
these visas, CONTRARY to the claims of ATTORNEY KUNT WILLS, apply to
immigrant spouses from all over the world. To bring the spouse to live
together as husband and wife IN the United States and for the spouse to
become a naturalized American citizen, these are the two choices.
ESSENTIALLY. (Actually there ARE others, BUT that is a horse of another
color.)
Under the K-1 visa a legal requirement is that the couple must marry IN
the United States within 90 days to process the green card application and
comply with the regulations of the U.S. Department of State. The K-1 visa
intended spouses to spouses from anywhere in the world. However - there are
special LAWS that apply to several nations - what are called "ADJUSTMENT
ACTS." (Adjusting immigration status.) In the case at hand - CUBA is one of
those nations, the Cuban Adjustment Act (a law enacted by the United States
Congress and signed by the President) maintains that any Cuban who lands on
American soil has the legal "right" to remain in the United States unless
they are found to be guilty of a crime.
Now when an American man marries a Cuban woman who has children, to
satisfy Cuban law they MUST get married or the children cannot be removed
from Cuba. Potentially her exit visa would also be denied by the Cuban
government. The K-3 visa is not helpful.
Let's discuss the K-3 Visa. The K-3 visas have a very high rate of being
denied 25%. Of those that are approved (75%) the normal processing time is 3
YEARS. (The K-1 visa is done in months) Eventual citizenship
(naturalization) is also lengthy and arduous. Generally women who enter on a
K-3 visa take 10 years to gain citizenship versus less than 5 under a K-1
visa. Although BOTH categories had been SEVERELY tightened up under the BUSH
ADMINISTRATION for those entering the country legally, this same
administration leaves the back door to Mexico wide open.
While a Cuban wife - such as mine would be able to STAY without a
marriage in the United States, in order to adjust her status under the green
card we would have to fight the issue through the courts. There is
absolutely NO DOUBT that we'd win. Maybe in 10 years maybe 20 if the INS
decides to appeal. And after spending hundreds of thousands of dollars to
arm wrestle Uncle Sam. (Something only a REALLY stupid Polack would do.)
Why would she care? Oh to have a U.S. passport to travel the world freely.
To be able to vote. But just to BE an American! Now somebody as INCREDIBLY
STUPID as Kunt Wills can't understand why that would be important to her. He
lacks enough live brain cells for that. For the rational reader here this is
a woman who came here, who when doing things at home loved to play and sing
along to "God Bless America" and always cries when she sings. Does that mean
she hates her native Cuba? That is something that only a stupid Polack would
suggest OR my stalker DIPSHIT MOORE. She CAN and DOES love both! Like most
Cuban- Americans. And you have to have been IN Cuba to understand it.
Because I too love BOTH countries.
Dan Sullivan
Greegor
G > and the Iowa courts show some hits for that.
TNKev > showing how you love to stalk Kent greegor? shitbag.
Kev, You keep asserting that presenting public records
is stalking. Why is that?
John "C"
> I love to spam 'alt.support.child-protective-services'
>
Dan Sullivan
Kent Wills
You are the one who posted the names and birthdays of past and current
members of alt.friends. Do you REALLY think that is normal behavior?
How much time did you spend reading archived posts on Google before you
found the link to the pcpages page (the one you claim is a government web
site)?
Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
alt.friends?
--
Greegor
G > and the Iowa courts show some hits for that.
TNKev > showing how you love to stalk Kent greegor? shitbag.
G > Kev, You keep asserting that presenting public
G > records is stalking. Why is that?
Kent Wills
Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
alt.friends?
Kent Wills
" krp" <krp2...@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:cA9Mj.6234$Q53.1907@trnddc08...
>
> "Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ftp4o6$elf$1...@stable.tornevall.net...
>
> I await SUPREME SUPREME COURT JUSTICE Kunt Wills
What is the root cause of your mentall illness that forces you to LIE
about me?
Kent Wills
>
> "Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ftp4o6$elf$1...@stable.tornevall.net...
>
> Okay here is the deal. The U.S. and Cuba are not real good friends. (No
> shit!) Cuba is also NOT a free country. (No shit again.) The U.S. has some
> pretty
> fukkked up immigration laws. (No shit again!) In order to take children
> out of Cuba the mother must be married under CUBAN LAW to do so.
>
> In the United States (CONTRARY to the LEGAL OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY KUNT
> WILLS)
No matter how many times you LIE and claim I'm an attorney, I'm still
not an attorney. And no one is buying your lie.
>one faces the choice when romantically involved with a Cuban woman of
>choosing between the K-1 Visa (Fiancé) and the K-3 Visa for a wife. Now
>these visas, CONTRARY to the claims of ATTORNEY KUNT WILLS, apply to
>immigrant spouses from all over the world.
When have I even implied they don't apply?
>To bring the spouse to live together as husband and wife IN the United
>States and for the spouse to become a naturalized American citizen, these
>are the two choices. ESSENTIALLY. (Actually there ARE others, BUT that is a
>horse of another color.)
>
> Under the K-1 visa a legal requirement is that the couple must marry IN
> the United States within 90 days to process the green card application and
> comply with the regulations of the U.S. Department of State.
Has this ever been in dispute?
>The K-1 visa intended spouses to spouses from anywhere in the world.
>However - there are special LAWS that apply to several nations - what are
>called "ADJUSTMENT ACTS." (Adjusting immigration status.) In the case at
>hand - CUBA is one of those nations, the Cuban Adjustment Act (a law
>enacted by the United States Congress and signed by the President)
>maintains that any Cuban who lands on American soil has the legal "right"
>to remain in the United States unless they are found to be guilty of a
>crime.
So why did you LIE and claim that you married Barbara in the U.S. so
that she could stay?
You are desperately trying to avoid answering this question. I'm not
going to allow you to avoid it.
Answer the question.
>
> Now when an American man marries a Cuban woman who has children, to
> satisfy Cuban law they MUST get married or the children cannot be removed
> from Cuba. Potentially her exit visa would also be denied by the Cuban
> government. The K-3 visa is not helpful.
>
> Let's discuss the K-3 Visa. The K-3 visas have a very high rate of
> being denied 25%. Of those that are approved (75%) the normal processing
> time is 3 YEARS. (The K-1 visa is done in months) Eventual citizenship
> (naturalization) is also lengthy and arduous. Generally women who enter on
> a K-3 visa take 10 years to gain citizenship versus less than 5 under a
> K-1 visa. Although BOTH categories had been SEVERELY tightened up under
> the BUSH ADMINISTRATION for those entering the country legally, this same
> administration leaves the back door to Mexico wide open.
>
> While a Cuban wife - such as mine would be able to STAY without a
> marriage in the United States, in order to adjust her status under the
> green card we would have to fight the issue through the courts.
Why did you LIE and state that you married her in the U.S. "...so that
she could stay."?
>There is absolutely NO DOUBT that we'd win. Maybe in 10 years maybe 20 if
>the INS decides to appeal. And after spending hundreds of thousands of
>dollars to arm wrestle Uncle Sam. (Something only a REALLY stupid Polack
>would do.)
Everyone knows you hate everyone in/from Poland. Your bigotry is well
known and documented.
> Why would she care? Oh to have a U.S. passport to travel the world freely.
> To be able to vote. But just to BE an American! Now somebody as
> INCREDIBLY STUPID as Kunt Wills can't understand why that would be
> important to her. He lacks enough live brain cells for that. For the
> rational reader here this is a woman who came here, who when doing things
> at home loved to play and sing along to "God Bless America" and always
> cries when she sings. Does that mean she hates her native Cuba? That is
> something that only a stupid Polack would suggest OR my stalker DIPSHIT
> MOORE.
When has anyone, other than you, claimed she hates Cuba?
>She CAN and DOES love both! Like most Cuban- Americans. And you have to
>have been IN Cuba to understand it. Because I too love BOTH countries.
>
Your rant fails to address the issue. That you LIED when you claimed
you married her in the U.S. so that she could stay. As you have proved, she
wouldn't have been kicked out.
Please explain exactly why you LIED about this matter. And it was a
lie. If you simply worded your comment poorly, you would have stated so
long ago. It's clear you INTENTIONAL made a statement you knew was false.
Kent Wills
> TNKev > you say that as though he has a
> TNKev > driver's license under his usenet nym.
>
> tjsb > If he has been able to get a license,
> tjab > he does have one under that name.
> tjab >
> tjab > Reference the TSA tage and the airline
> tjab > ticket that he posted scans of on the web.
>
> Well, he did mention driving without registration
I failed to register my truck. 100% my own fault.
> and the Iowa courts show some hits for that.
No they don't.
Guess what year it occurred. You can narrow it down a bit, since I
bought the truck in 1997. Since it would have been registered the year I
bought it, you can rule out '97.
I mentioned it last year, so 2008 is obviously out.
Start guessing, then post the link showing what you claim.
Oh wait, you don't post links when asked (reference my multiple
requests for the link to the non-existent David as a Nazi picture). Bummer.
Kent Wills
"TNKev" <TNKe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ftr0bs$5q6$2...@news.datemas.de...
> Greegor wrote:
>> TNKev > you say that as though he has a
>> TNKev > driver's license under his usenet nym.
>>
>> tjsb > If he has been able to get a license,
>> tjab > he does have one under that name.
>> tjab >
>
> liar.
Only tjab would be so dumb as to think I would get a driver's licesen
under my nym.
>
>> tjab > Reference the TSA tage and the airline
>> tjab > ticket that he posted scans of on the web.
>
> that he said was altered.reference the web page that you posted.
>
It's funny how it's fake when tjab needs it to be fake, but 100% real
when he needs it to be real.
> don't you have some studying to do boy?
>
NOTHING is more important in tjab's mind that regaining some or all of
whatever it is he thinks he lost to me in various flame wars.
>>
>> Well, he did mention driving without registration
>> and the Iowa courts show some hits for that.
>
> showing how you love to stalk Kent greegor? shitbag.
>
In this case he's lying.
krp
"Kunt Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:fttdru$33g$1...@stable.tornevall.net...
>> Okay here is the deal. The U.S. and Cuba are not real good friends.
>> (No shit!) Cuba is also NOT a free country. (No shit again.) The U.S. has
>> some pretty
>> fukkked up immigration laws. (No shit again!) In order to take children
>> out of Cuba the mother must be married under CUBAN LAW to do so.
>> In the United States (CONTRARY to the LEGAL OPINIONS OF ATTORNEY KUNT
>> WILLS)
> No matter how many times you LIE and claim I'm an attorney, I'm still
> not an attorney. And no one is buying your lie.
Kunt - I am making FUN of your HIGHLY OPINIONATED BULLSHIT. You are a
fuukking IGNORANT ASS with a BIG MOUTH.
>>one faces the choice when romantically involved with a Cuban woman of
>>choosing between the K-1 Visa (Fiancé) and the K-3 Visa for a wife. Now
>>these visas, CONTRARY to the claims of ATTORNEY KUNT WILLS, apply to
>>immigrant spouses from all over the world.
> When have I even implied they don't apply?
Kunt you don't know enough to claim ANYTHING but that NEVER slows you
down from sharing your opinions in a MOST strident way.
>>To bring the spouse to live together as husband and wife IN the United
>>States and for the spouse to become a naturalized American citizen, these
>>are the two choices. ESSENTIALLY. (Actually there ARE others, BUT that is
>>a horse of another color.)
>> Under the K-1 visa a legal requirement is that the couple must marry
>> IN the United States within 90 days to process the green card application
>> and comply with the regulations of the U.S. Department of State.
> Has this ever been in dispute?
WHO KNOWS with YOUR bullshit?
>>The K-1 visa intended spouses to spouses from anywhere in the world.
>>However - there are special LAWS that apply to several nations - what are
>>called "ADJUSTMENT ACTS." (Adjusting immigration status.) In the case at
>>hand - CUBA is one of those nations, the Cuban Adjustment Act (a law
>>enacted by the United States Congress and signed by the President)
>>maintains that any Cuban who lands on American soil has the legal "right"
>>to remain in the United States unless they are found to be guilty of a
>>crime.
> So why did you LIE and claim that you married Barbara in the U.S. so
> that she could stay?
You are STILL an IDIOT. A FUKKING IDIOT!
> You are desperately trying to avoid answering this question. I'm not
> going to allow you to avoid it.
> Answer the question.
Answer this first Kunt. Have you stopped beating your wife?
I just explained it above POLACK! The INS "REGULATIONS" say that, NOT
ME. AGain while you PRETEND to be this GREAT GREAT GREAT CERTIFIED
AAAAAAAAAA+++++++++ legal expert... You don't know JACK SHIT about
"conflicts of laws." As a POLACK it is way beyond your understanding to
grasp that ONE law, or in THIS CASE - department REGULATION - may require
something in order for the person to STAY in the U.S., there way be, as in
THIS CASE - there IS, a law that negates it. HOWEVER you FUKKING MORON - it
is not worth fighting INS even thoug eventually we'd win. It is the "PAY THE
MAN THE $2" syndrome. AGAIN something your TINY TINY broken brain can't
grasp. You are WAY too STOOOOOOPID to get it, and too STUPID for anyone ever
to be able to explain it to you - POLACK! The REGULATION says ONE thing the
written LAW something else. The INS regulation says that tyo stay we MUST be
married in the U.S. within 90 days of her arrival. The LAW, The Cuban
Adjustment Act declares that she has a LEGAL RIGHT to STAY. CONFLICT OF LAWS
you MORON! However - you simple fukk - it was easier for us to obey the MOST
RESTRICTIVE LAW to speed the process up. Something you as CEMENT HEAD would
NEVER be able to understand. THAT is the ANSWER you buffoon, it is YOUR
prtoblem that you can't understand it because you are such an IDIOT.
>> Now when an American man marries a Cuban woman who has children, to
>> satisfy Cuban law they MUST get married or the children cannot be removed
>> from Cuba. Potentially her exit visa would also be denied by the Cuban
>> government. The K-3 visa is not helpful.
>> Let's discuss the K-3 Visa. The K-3 visas have a very high rate of
>> being denied 25%. Of those that are approved (75%) the normal processing
>> time is 3 YEARS. (The K-1 visa is done in months) Eventual citizenship
>> (naturalization) is also lengthy and arduous. Generally women who enter
>> on a K-3 visa take 10 years to gain citizenship versus less than 5 under
>> a K-1 visa. Although BOTH categories had been SEVERELY tightened up under
>> the BUSH ADMINISTRATION for those entering the country legally, this same
>> administration leaves the back door to Mexico wide open.
>> While a Cuban wife - such as mine would be able to STAY without a
>> marriage in the United States, in order to adjust her status under the
>> green card we would have to fight the issue through the courts.
> Why did you LIE and state that you married her in the U.S. "...so that
> she could stay."?
See what I mean? A TOTAL INABILITY TO grasp it. POLACK!
>>There is absolutely NO DOUBT that we'd win. Maybe in 10 years maybe 20 if
>>the INS decides to appeal. And after spending hundreds of thousands of
>>dollars to arm wrestle Uncle Sam. (Something only a REALLY stupid Polack
>>would do.)
> Everyone knows you hate everyone in/from Poland. Your bigotry is well
> known and documented.
No Kunt just incredibly STUPID ONES LIKE YOU.
>> Why would she care? Oh to have a U.S. passport to travel the world
>> freely. To be able to vote. But just to BE an American! Now somebody as
>> INCREDIBLY STUPID as Kunt Wills can't understand why that would be
>> important to her. He lacks enough live brain cells for that. For the
>> rational reader here this is a woman who came here, who when doing things
>> at home loved to play and sing along to "God Bless America" and always
>> cries when she sings. Does that mean she hates her native Cuba? That is
>> something that only a stupid Polack would suggest OR my stalker DIPSHIT
>> MOORE.
> When has anyone, other than you, claimed she hates Cuba?
Kunt READ your own SHIT sometime.
>>She CAN and DOES love both! Like most Cuban- Americans. And you have to
>>have been IN Cuba to understand it. Because I too love BOTH countries.
> Your rant fails to address the issue. That you LIED when you claimed
> you married her in the U.S. so that she could stay. As you have proved,
> she wouldn't have been kicked out.
> Please explain exactly why you LIED about this matter. And it was a
> lie. If you simply worded your comment poorly, you would have stated so
> long ago. It's clear you INTENTIONAL made a statement you knew was false.
Kunt I didn't lie. YOU think I did because YOU are an IDIOT!
krp
news:fttdf3$2qd$1...@stable.tornevall.net...
>> I await SUPREME SUPREME COURT JUSTICE Kunt Wills
> What is the root cause of your mentall illness that forces you to LIE
> about me?
No LIES Kunt - just RIDICULE! Ridicule of an ARROGANT STUPID POLACK!
>>to explain, in outline form the major differences between the K-1 Visa
>>issued by the United States and the K-3 Visa. Mr. Wills as THE leading
>>expert in the world will give us the simple, yet definitive distinctions
>>between the two. Following that, Mist Wills as the world's LEADING
>>EXPERT on Cuban immigration law will explain to us the criteria for a
>>Cuban national to obtain an exit visa for herself and her children.
>>Because of Mr. Wills exactly knowledge he can do this very briefly for us.
>> He will explain IN DETAIL subsequently the relationship between the
>> REGULATIONS issued by the Department of State for the K-1 visa and the
>> Cuban Adjustment act, on which, again Kunt Wills is the LEADING EXPERT in
>> the nation on this area as well. He will explain conflicts of law and the
>> legal platform to argue each in relation to the other.
>> He is, just ask him, the GREATEST living expert in these fields and
>> offers his LEGAL OPINION to any who ask.
>> Kent loves to come back saying he isn't an expert. Well - his posts
>> show THAT FACT clearly. That has NEVER slowed the son of a bitch down
>> from making EXTREMELY DOGMATIC statements regarding these issues and
>> stating them as "ABSOLUTE FACT." Permitting absolutely NO disagreement
>> from his strident "OPINIONS" and showing no inclination to accept any
>> other view. THAT - is holding ones self out to be an EXPERT and in this
>> case FINAL AUTHORITY EXPERT!
So WHERE is your LEGAL OPINION Attorney Wills? WHAT is the differences
between a K-1 Visa and a K-3 Visa. Just your EXPERT LEGAL OPINIONS Kunt.
krp
"Crybaby Kunt Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:ftt8v0$u98$1...@stable.tornevall.net...
>
> "Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:03f72f3c-f115-4d96...@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>G > Well, he did mention driving without registration
>> G > and the Iowa courts show some hits for that.
>>
>> TNKev > showing how you love to stalk Kent greegor? shitbag.
>>
>> Kev, You keep asserting that presenting public records
>> is stalking. Why is that?
>
> You are the one who posted the names and birthdays of past and current
> members of alt.friends.
YOU are the little PRICK who put them up on his WEBSITE! Now you CRY like a
BABY because somebody mentions them. WHAT A WUSS! NO WONDER they kicked your
sorry ass out of AUK.
Dan Sullivan
John "C"
> I love to spam 'alt.support.child-protective-services'
John "C"
> I love to spam 'alt.support.child-protective-services'
forevernitefan
You looked for registration of his boat. That involves tme and
effort, You also bothered to post the phone number of the state agency
involved and even argued about their office hours. This is hardly "
just come acorss" type behavior, Greg.
It's evidence of obsession and stalking behavior.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
http://www.boblarsonfanclub.tk/
forevernitefan
> "MISTER JUSTICE Kunt Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in messagenews:fttdf3$2qd$1...@stable.tornevall.net...
>
> - Show quoted text -
Meanwhile ridiculing you, Kenny bob, would be redundant, as your
posts painfully show that you damage yurself more than anything we
could say.
snickers
Now listen to me Moe Tillis, you have caused quite enough trouble in this
group, young lady. You need to get right with the Lord and ask Bob's
forgiveness as well.
Now that the news of Kent's burglarly conviction has become well known you
have only yourself to blame for befriending a criminal who corrupts youths.
Seek help, Moe.
Bob can save you.
TNKev
searching out said public records and posting them over and over again
is stalking and harassment.
stalker.
child abuser.
spouse abuser.
does it make you feel good to harass women on the internet?
why are you harassing and stalking members of alt.friends?
TNKev
because it is stalking and you know it or you would be asking for proof
of my assertion.
stalker.
krp
> Greegor wrote:
>> G > Well, he did mention driving without registration
>> G > and the Iowa courts show some hits for that.
>>
>> TNKev > showing how you love to stalk Kent greegor? shitbag.
>>
>> Kev, You keep asserting that presenting public records
>> is stalking. Why is that?
>
>
> searching out said public records and posting them over and over again is
> stalking and harassment.
And posting them also on a website like your PAL Moore?????
Please explain to me how THAT is "different" Kevin.
Dan Sullivan
freedom
Are you referring to the public records about you, at
http://docs.aboutkenpangborn.com?
Those were posted for the purpose of documenting and refuting various lies
of yours, as well as giving your prospective clients the full story, not
just your fraudulent spin on things. For example, you collect and manage
large amounts of money from clients, for the purpose of handling their
family law cases. However, your bankruptcy proves that you can't even
manage your own finances, and your divorce (and subsequent purchase of a
mail-order wife) documents that you can't handle your own family matters,
let alone meddling in those of others.
And, from day one of http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com, you've had a very
simple avenue available to you, to get the site and all the documentation
taken down. It's your own fault that you've chosen to run in the opposite
direction as fast as your pudgy little legs could carry you.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
criminals
"If you call the police, I'll knock out all of your teeth, I'll cripple
you. I may go to prison for it, but when I get out, I'll be able to walk,
but you will still be a cripple."
- --Pangborn puppet Greg Hanson of alt.support.child-protective-services **,
in a verbal threat to his girlfriend
"...my aunt wouldnt come over to our house anymore because of how he would
talk to her and come on to her....and he had over 180 pictures of her on
his computer"
- --Ken Pangborn's former stepdaughter Megan, on growing up in the Pangborn
household
** - this conclusion was reached via applying Ken and Greg's logic
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQA/AwUBSAOEYabdsu4taRc6EQIwzQCfQJjuXynzOpNP1BcD0HlEJQTw/xsAoOX5
OKnpMkm7XaFh/GNMyoBCNFXH
=qTta
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
TNKev
> "Crybaby Kunt Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:ftt8v0$u98$1...@stable.tornevall.net...
>> "Greegor" <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:03f72f3c-f115-4d96...@a22g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>>> G > Well, he did mention driving without registration
>>> G > and the Iowa courts show some hits for that.
>>>
>>> TNKev > showing how you love to stalk Kent greegor? shitbag.
>>>
>>> Kev, You keep asserting that presenting public records
>>> is stalking. Why is that?
>> You are the one who posted the names and birthdays of past and current
>> members of alt.friends.
>
> YOU are the little PRICK who put them up on his WEBSITE!
So it's Kent's fault that greegor is a stalker? typical...blame the victim.
idiot.
[...]
TNKev
I don't have any pal named Moore.
>
> Please explain to me how THAT is "different" Kevin.
>
>
you will have to ask *him* to explain his behavior, I have nothing to do
with that.
Kent Wills
>Greegor wrote:
>> G > Well, he did mention driving without registration
>> G > and the Iowa courts show some hits for that.
>>
>> TNKev > showing how you love to stalk Kent greegor? shitbag.
>>
>> Kev, You keep asserting that presenting public records
>> is stalking. Why is that?
>
>
>searching out said public records and posting them over and over again
>is stalking and harassment.
>
Especially since he's doing it with the intent to intimidate me
into being silent about his beating his ex-wife and his abuse of
Lisa's daughter.
>stalker.
>
>child abuser.
>
>spouse abuser.
>
>does it make you feel good to harass women on the internet?
>
>
>why are you harassing and stalking members of alt.friends?
Are those crickets I hear? :)
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Kent Wills
I'm not Kevin, but I think I can answer.
David is trying to protect people from your con game. He doesn't
want to see people lose a great deal of money paying you for worthless
consultations.
Those who have commented on you have said you're assistance was
worthless.
--
"It's attached to a thing called a "WIFE" Betty."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn showing how he views his wife
as an object and NOT a human being.
Message-ID: <KLf2j.31312$9h.4837@trnddc07>
Greegor
G > and the Iowa courts show some hits for that.
TNKev > showing how you love to stalk Kent greegor? shitbag.
Checking Kent's PUBLIC statements against court records
is not stalking. Declaring it so is a deception or "con game".
G > Kev, You keep asserting that presenting
G > public records is stalking. Why is that?
TNKev > searching out said public records and
TNKev > posting them over and over again is
TNKev > stalking and harassment.
KRP > And posting them also on a website like your PAL Moore?????
KRP >Please explain to me how THAT is "different" Kevin.
KW > I'm not Kevin,
Can you prove that?
KW > but I think I can answer.
KW > David is trying to protect people from
KW > your con game. He doesn't want to
KW > see people lose a great deal of money
KW > paying you for worthless consultations.
How would Dave know?
He was never a client of Ken Pangborn!
And he sure as HELL doesn't have a "great deal of money".
Dave's pissed because he got caught red handed
doing his internet harassment at Sara Lee, Inc.
They fired his ass immediately and escorted him out.
He has had several other employment problems,
even working under false identities.
KW > Those who have commented on you have
KW > said you're assistance was worthless.
When one had positive comments the webmaster
was outed and harassed immediately by your associates.
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>G > Well, he did mention driving without registration
>G > and the Iowa courts show some hits for that.
>
>TNKev > showing how you love to stalk Kent greegor? shitbag.
>
>Checking Kent's PUBLIC statements against court records
>is not stalking. Declaring it so is a deception or "con game".
What you chose to call Kevin's truthful comment is YOUR issue to
address.
>
>G > Kev, You keep asserting that presenting
>G > public records is stalking. Why is that?
>
>TNKev > searching out said public records and
>TNKev > posting them over and over again is
>TNKev > stalking and harassment.
>
>KRP > And posting them also on a website like your PAL Moore?????
>
>KRP >Please explain to me how THAT is "different" Kevin.
>
>KW > I'm not Kevin,
>
>Can you prove that?
Yes.
>
>KW > but I think I can answer.
>KW > David is trying to protect people from
>KW > your con game. He doesn't want to
>KW > see people lose a great deal of money
>KW > paying you for worthless consultations.
>
>How would Dave know?
>He was never a client of Ken Pangborn!
I presume he used the comments of those who were. Some of those
comments can be found on http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>And he sure as HELL doesn't have a "great deal of money".
I didn't say Kenny-Bob has a great deal of money. His bankruptcy
proves he doesn't.
>
>Dave's pissed because he got caught red handed
>doing his internet harassment at Sara Lee, Inc.
Except that David didn't work for Sara Lee. You're basing your
claim on one of Kenny-Bob's lies.
Note that when anyone asks for evidence of David ever having even
worked for Sara Lee, let alone being fired, Kenny-Bob runs from the
request.
He's done that at least five times with me.
>They fired his ass immediately and escorted him out.
>He has had several other employment problems,
>even working under false identities.
Can you provide evidence of these claim? Something credible.
Kenny-Bob has been proved to lie about David far too many times to
accept anything he claims.
>
>KW > Those who have commented on you have
>KW > said you're assistance was worthless.
>
>When one had positive comments the webmaster
>was outed and harassed immediately by your associates.
Except that no one contacted the web master. That whole thing
was based on fake E-mails from Lost.
By now you must be able to accept that she faked them. It's been
proved that the people she claimed got them didn't. Her own evidence
prove it.
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
Greegor
G > and the Iowa courts show some hits for that.
How come you didn't acknowledge those
public comments you made Kent?
TNKev > showing how you love to stalk Kent greegor? shitbag.
G > Checking Kent's PUBLIC statements against court records
G > is not stalking. Declaring it so is a deception or "con game".
KW > What you chose to call Kevin's truthful
KW > comment is YOUR issue to address.
Kent Wills, ex-con, you are a con man.
G > Kev, You keep asserting that presenting
G > public records is stalking. Why is that?
TNKev > searching out said public records and
TNKev > posting them over and over again is
TNKev > stalking and harassment.
KRP > And posting them also on a website like your PAL Moore?????
KRP >Please explain to me how THAT is "different" Kevin.
KW > I'm not Kevin,
G > Can you prove that?
KW > Yes.
If somebody investigates your public
claim you'll call it ""stalking"" right?
KW > but I think I can answer.
KW > David is trying to protect people from
KW > your con game. He doesn't want to
KW > see people lose a great deal of money
KW > paying you for worthless consultations.
G > How would Dave know?
G > He was never a client of Ken Pangborn!
KW > I presume he used the comments of
KW > those who were. Some of those comments
KW > can be found on <snip!>
G > And he sure as HELL doesn't have a "great deal of money".
KW > I didn't say Kenny-Bob has a great deal of money.
KW > His bankruptcy proves he doesn't.
I was referring to David Daniel Moore, who lives in his
adoptive mommy's basement at age 37.
Did you forget the CONTEXT of the
"great deal of money" comment was from YOU?
G > Dave's pissed because he got caught red handed
G > doing his internet harassment at Sara Lee, Inc.
KW > Except that David didn't work for Sara Lee.
KW > You're basing your claim on one of
KW > Kenny-Bob's lies. Note that when anyone
KW > asks for evidence of David ever having even
KW > worked for Sara Lee, let alone being fired,
KW > Kenny-Bob runs from the request.
KW > He's done that at least five times with me.
G > They fired his ass immediately and escorted him out.
G > He has had several other employment problems,
G > even working under false identities.
KW > Can you provide evidence of these claim?
KW > Something credible.
KW > Kenny-Bob has been proved to lie about
KW > David far too many times to accept anything he claims.
For you to pose as the arbiter of truth is absurd Kent.
KW > Those who have commented on you have
KW > said you're assistance was worthless.
G > When one had positive comments the webmaster
G > was outed and harassed immediately by your associates.
KW > Except that no one contacted the web master.
KW > That whole thing was based on fake E-mails from Lost.
Caught with your pants down and parts hanging out you LIE.
KW > By now you must be able to accept that she faked them.
Nope.
KW > It's been proved that the people she claimed got
KW > them didn't. Her own evidence prove it.
You are Kent Bradley Wills, Garage Burglary Felon, and liar.
Kent and the BOAT registration
1. Kent posted links to photos of his boat.
2. Kent made public claims about his boat registration.
3. Checks with Iowa boat registration reveal it's registered to
Caquelin's.
4. Kent lied about boat registration some more.
5. Kent's posted link to a youtube video of his boat.
6. The boat registration was plainly visible. IA 6312 WW
7. video posted Oct 6 2007 purchase weeks before (Sep 2007 purchase)
8. Checks with Iowa boat registration reveal it's registered to
Caquelin's.
9. Kent claimed otherwise supposedly calling boat registration after
4:30.
10. Kent lied about boat registration (government) phone hours on
recording.
11. Kent removed the youtube video, and his entire youtube account.
The Kent Wills saga continues
freedom
On Mon, 14 Apr 2008, Greegor <Gree...@gmail.com>, who once threatened to
cripple his girlfriend, ** wrote:
>G > Well, he did mention driving without registration
>G > and the Iowa courts show some hits for that.
>
>TNKev > showing how you love to stalk Kent greegor? shitbag.
>
>Checking Kent's PUBLIC statements against court records
>is not stalking. Declaring it so is a deception or "con game".
>
>G > Kev, You keep asserting that presenting
>G > public records is stalking. =A0 Why is that?
>
>TNKev > searching out said public records and
>TNKev > posting them over and over again is
>TNKev > stalking and harassment.
>
>KRP > And posting them also on a website like your PAL Moore?????
>
>KRP >Please explain to me how THAT is "different" Kevin.
>
>KW > I'm not Kevin,
>
>Can you prove that?
>
>KW > but I think I can answer.
>KW >=A0David is trying to protect people from
>KW > your con game. =A0He doesn't want to
>KW > see people lose a great deal of money
>KW > paying you for worthless consultations.
>
>How would Dave know?
>He was never a client of Ken Pangborn!
Because I have heard it from not one, not two, but several people who were
former clients of Ken. The story is always pretty much the same, and
according to each of them, he behaves exactly the same way he does on
usenet.
And, before you repeat his line about the clients being phony, like the
good puppet you are.... he has talked to and about these particular clients
on usenet.
>And he sure as HELL doesn't have a "great deal of money".
You have no idea how much money I do or don't have. Unless you have
illegally accessed my bank accounts, mutual funds, stocks, bonds etc.
and/or my tax returns. Are you admitting to doing so?
>
>Dave's pissed because he got caught red handed
>doing his internet harassment at Sara Lee, Inc.
No, I didn't. I've never worked for Sara Lee.
>They fired his ass immediately and escorted him out.
No, they didn't, regardless of how many times you and Ken repeat this lie.
>He has had several other employment problems,
>even working under false identities.
Feel free to provide proof that I've ever had employment problems, or even
that I've been without a job for a single day in my adult life. I'll
immediately hand over all the domain info for aboutkenpangborn.com to you,
and leave usenet forever.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
criminals
"If you call the police, I'll knock out all of your teeth, I'll cripple
you. I may go to prison for it, but when I get out, I'll be able to walk,
but you will still be a cripple."
- --Pangborn puppet Greg Hanson of alt.support.child-protective-services **,
in a verbal threat to his girlfriend
"...my aunt wouldnt come over to our house anymore because of how he would
talk to her and come on to her....and he had over 180 pictures of her on
his computer"
- --Ken Pangborn's former stepdaughter Megan, on growing up in the Pangborn
household
** - this conclusion was reached via applying Ken and Greg's logic
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQA/AwUBSAQEcqbdsu4taRc6EQJlvwCfbdyj87HYaZ5W4C+aYfg1x4S3n0oAn2XF
xcSYEhGdjBl4Z5CWMVWfWpLF
=0ScC
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
forevernitefan
>
> Now listen to me Moe Tillis, you have caused quite enough trouble in this
> group, young lady. You need to get right with the Lord and ask Bob's
> forgiveness as well.
I'm not bowing to to you, Bob Larson. You're a liar, a thief, an
adulteror, a fornicator, a plagarist, greedy and fame hungry and the
one who needs to ask for forgiveness is YOU not me, hypocrite. You
ABANDONED your wife of over twenty years who was by your side during
the lean times because you wanted to have a male heir, and the dumb
broad you picked for a trophy wife has been whelping out only girls.
You use people's hurts and pains to take advantage of them and parade
their ills with no compassion so you can sell the spectacle on DVDs.
You claim to " do what Jesus did" as a slogan but what you DO do is
have two mansions worth over $3 million, both in gated communities,
you never fly other than first class and you exhort your audience to
give you money and valuable personal property. Things Jesus Christ
NEVER did or advocated.
I've known about you for far too long, Bobbie, to fall for this act
you are doing. And you should be smart enough to know that. Granted
your narcicissm is pretty big, but I assure you you are not G-d.
>
> Now that the news of Kent's burglarly conviction has become well known you
> have only yourself to blame for befriending a criminal who corrupts youths.
SHEESH!! ROTFLMAO!! Hey Bob Larson, did you even bother to check up
on whether the clam is legit or not? As far as the " corrupting youth"
claim, you are hadly the one to talk, Bobbie. Tell me about Lori B's
girls and why she was so afraid of your intense interest in them.
>
> Seek help, Moe.
>
> Bob can save you
" Bob can save" me? I thought only JESUS CHRIST can do that. At least
that's what the Christian Bible claims. Bobis a mortal, not a deity.
He has no power over me, though no doubt he would love to control me.
Bob, when you are flogged and crucified like Jesus was and you rise
from the dead, THEN you can go ahead and proclaim you can personally
save people's souls. As it is you are a worse sinner than I could ever
be, and according to a number of Christian teachings, you are a
blasphemer as well. You are posing yourself as "like the Most high",
Bob, and if you were seriously as cocnerned from my soul as you
PRETEND, you would suggest a number of devout Christians , not just
yourself.
You can call yourself " reverend" ( a mail order degree) all you
want and have your " Spritual Freedom Church" ( an oxymoron,
considering what actually goes on there) where you are the
unquestioned CULT leader, but you should know by now this isn't going
to convince me. And my free will is stronger than you.
And the TRUTH about you will still be around to expose you.
And you are as mortal as I am, Bobbie.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
http://www.boblarsonfanclub.tk/
.- Hide quoted text -
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>G > Well, he did mention driving without registration
>G > and the Iowa courts show some hits for that.
>
>How come you didn't acknowledge those
>public comments you made Kent?
I did.
Is there any SPECIFIC reason you're lying about this?
>
>TNKev > showing how you love to stalk Kent greegor? shitbag.
>
>G > Checking Kent's PUBLIC statements against court records
>G > is not stalking. Declaring it so is a deception or "con game".
>
>KW > What you chose to call Kevin's truthful
>KW > comment is YOUR issue to address.
>
>Kent Wills, ex-con, you are a con man.
Your pathological lying does not make me a con man.
Next pathological lie, please.
>
>G > Kev, You keep asserting that presenting
>G > public records is stalking. Why is that?
>
>TNKev > searching out said public records and
>TNKev > posting them over and over again is
>TNKev > stalking and harassment.
>
>KRP > And posting them also on a website like your PAL Moore?????
>
>KRP >Please explain to me how THAT is "different" Kevin.
>
>KW > I'm not Kevin,
>
>G > Can you prove that?
>
>KW > Yes.
>
>If somebody investigates your public
>claim you'll call it ""stalking"" right?
No.
You asked a question. I answered it.
What is the SPECIFIC reason your trying to distract attention
from the truth?
>
>KW > but I think I can answer.
>KW > David is trying to protect people from
>KW > your con game. He doesn't want to
>KW > see people lose a great deal of money
>KW > paying you for worthless consultations.
>
>G > How would Dave know?
>G > He was never a client of Ken Pangborn!
>
>KW > I presume he used the comments of
>KW > those who were. Some of those comments
>KW > can be found on http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>
>G > And he sure as HELL doesn't have a "great deal of money".
>
>KW > I didn't say Kenny-Bob has a great deal of money.
>KW > His bankruptcy proves he doesn't.
>
>I was referring to David Daniel Moore, who lives in his
>adoptive mommy's basement at age 37.
Small problem. Kenny-Bob has claimed David's middle name is
Dennis. He claimed to have proof.
Was he lying then, or is he lying now, or are both instances
lies?
>
>Did you forget the CONTEXT of the
>"great deal of money" comment was from YOU?
In reference to Kenny-Bob's potential clients.
Note that I wrote, " He doesn't want to see people lose a great
deal of money paying you for worthless consultations."
To one with the ability to read beyond a fourth grade level, it's
clear that I wasn't making any reference to David.
Is this further proof that your mind operates at a fourth grade
level, or another of your MANY lies? I'll accept either answer.
>
>G > Dave's pissed because he got caught red handed
>G > doing his internet harassment at Sara Lee, Inc.
>
>KW > Except that David didn't work for Sara Lee.
>KW > You're basing your claim on one of
>KW > Kenny-Bob's lies. Note that when anyone
>KW > asks for evidence of David ever having even
>KW > worked for Sara Lee, let alone being fired,
>KW > Kenny-Bob runs from the request.
>KW > He's done that at least five times with me.
>
>G > They fired his ass immediately and escorted him out.
>G > He has had several other employment problems,
>G > even working under false identities.
>
>KW > Can you provide evidence of these claim?
>KW > Something credible.
>KW > Kenny-Bob has been proved to lie about
>KW > David far too many times to accept anything he claims.
>
>For you to pose as the arbiter of truth is absurd Kent.
I take it you can't supply anything. I didn't think you would be
able, since it's far more plausible than not that Kenny-Bob was lying.
>
>KW > Those who have commented on you have
>KW > said you're assistance was worthless.
>
>G > When one had positive comments the webmaster
>G > was outed and harassed immediately by your associates.
>
>KW > Except that no one contacted the web master.
>KW > That whole thing was based on fake E-mails from Lost.
>
>Caught with your pants down and parts hanging out you LIE.
How, exactly, does the TRUTH that Lost lied (her own evidence
proved it) effect me?
>
>KW > By now you must be able to accept that she faked them.
>
>Nope.
Then you are far more stupid than I dared think.
Answer these question:
Did Kevin's address appear in the E-mail she claimed had his
address?
Did anyone's address, other than her own, appear in the E-mails
she claims were sent to others?
Do TRY to be honest when you reply. And don't bother with the
avoidance game.
>
>KW > It's been proved that the people she claimed got
>KW > them didn't. Her own evidence prove it.
>
>You are Kent Bradley Wills, Garage Burglary Felon, and liar.
Lost's fake E-mails prove no such thing.
Next lie, please.
>
>Kent and the BOAT registration
>1. Kent posted links to photos of his boat.
Yes.
>2. Kent made public claims about his boat registration.
No I didn't.
>3. Checks with Iowa boat registration reveal it's registered to
>Caquelin's.
Liar.
>4. Kent lied about boat registration some more.
Liar.
>5. Kent's posted link to a youtube video of his boat.
Yes.
>6. The boat registration was plainly visible. IA 6312 WW
It was, and is very visible in the video.
>7. video posted Oct 6 2007 purchase weeks before (Sep 2007 purchase)
When did I claim it was purchased in September?
>8. Checks with Iowa boat registration reveal it's registered to
>Caquelin's.
Liar.
>9. Kent claimed otherwise supposedly calling boat registration after
>4:30.
That's not the name of the office, dullard.
Is there anything about which you will not lie?
>10. Kent lied about boat registration (government) phone hours on
>recording.
No I didn't.
>11. Kent removed the youtube video, and his entire youtube account.
Nearly a month ago.
>
>The Kent Wills saga continues
Truth has a way of going on and on. I'm sure you HATE that.
Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
alt.friends? You've refused to answer each time I've asked,
preferring to play the avoidance game instead. Please answer now.
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
krp
>>And posting them also on a website like your PAL Moore?????
>>
>>Please explain to me how THAT is "different" Kevin.
>>
>
> I'm not Kevin, but I think I can answer.
> David is trying to protect people from your con game. He doesn't
> want to see people lose a great deal of money paying you for worthless
> consultations.
> Those who have commented on you have said you're assistance was
> worthless.
Who are they Kunt? The FICTIONAL folks on the Moore website? People made
up by DAVID MOORE? Like "Will Rainey" a character named after "William
Rainey Harper" college that is just a few miles of the old Moore homestead
that he lost to foreclosure some years ago? People who NEVER actually used
my services Kunt? Yet even in Dean Tong's BOOKS he credits the A-Team. You
have SERIOUS SERIOUS SERIOUS problems with support that particular MOORE
claim Kunt. The REAL track record is there and all YOU have is PSYCHO DAVID
MOORE.
krp
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:8tu704drjp4pn5jr7...@4ax.com...
>KW > but I think I can answer.
>KW > David is trying to protect people from
>KW > your con game. He doesn't want to
>KW > see people lose a great deal of money
>KW > paying you for worthless consultations
>>How would Dave know?He was never a client of Ken Pangborn!
>
> I presume he used the comments of those who were. Some of those
> comments can be found on http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
Your PROBLEM Kunt is that with ONE exception NONE of those people
actually WERE clients of mine, they were MADE UP by Moore. One name is of a
guy who never actually used my services. The one REAL client mentioned did
NOT (apparently) write the statements claimed to be his. The real
information, showing they were posted through another man also NOT one of my
clients have been stripped by Moore. The interesting thing, as WIKIPEDIA
found is that the SHIT on that website FAILS TO VERIFY. Meaning they do NOT
appear as originals on Google. They appear first within posts by Moore or
someone else.
Now let's take the ONE. Where the alleged former client complains he
didn't get anything for his $6,000. Let's look at where the guy WAS
(admittedly) he was under criminal indictment facing a 20 year sentence. He
had not seen his daughter in almost 18 months. His own lawyers in New Jersey
told him that he was "screwed" that he was going to lose, do prison time,
and never see his child again. At the end of our involvement (including TWO
major Universities - University of Georgia and University of Utah) the
criminal charges were dismissed with prejudice (can't be brought back) he
ended his divorce amicably (with our help) and 50% custody. The psychologist
(feminazi) that had torpedoed him was suspended from practice both in New
Jersey and Colorado.
What dad in similar circumstances would say that such an OUTCOME was
"worthless?" Tell me Kunt - IF you were in that circumstance and then at
the end got THAT result would YOU say it was worthless? How many dads do you
think there are who spent 10 times that and still lost? Of course it costs
more today, but we DO MORE today.
Your problem, asswipe, is that you rely on Moore's website to do your
thinking for you. He's full of shit and SO ARE YOU punk!
krp
"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
news:618b1750f607ac2c...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>>KW > but I think I can answer.
>>KW >=A0David is trying to protect people from
>>KW > your con game. =A0He doesn't want to
>>KW > see people lose a great deal of money
>>KW > paying you for worthless consultations.
>
>>How would Dave know?
>>He was never a client of Ken Pangborn!
> Because I have heard it from not one, not two, but several people who were
> former clients of Ken. The story is always pretty much the same, and
> according to each of them, he behaves exactly the same way he does on
> usenet.
Sorry Davey you are LYING! LYING YOUR ASS OFF. The people you list were NOT
former clients of mine. Will Rainey as ONE example is a person YOU created.
Mr. Lueck was never actually a client. That was a situation HE created. Tom
Walsh WAS and he WON. All we have is third party posts claiming he was
unhappy.
With regard to Tom's case. Only two things can be true.Given the history of
the case, and the results, (criminal charges dismissed with prejudice, 50%
custody and peace with his ex) $6,000 would be a bargain ANY dad in a
similar situation can only dream of. Even the materials posted admit the
FACTS Davey. When he came to us he hadn't seen his daughter in almost 18
months. He was facing 20 years in prison for something he did NOT do and he
had one of the most powerful feminazi psychologists in America testifying
against him. He had a great settlement in his divorce and that psychologist
got suspended from practice and has a HUGE HIT on her licenses in New Jersey
and Colorado. She no longer testifies as an expert. NOTHING? WORTHLESS?
Davey your bitterness is that you never had the opportunity to get
"worthless" help like that. Maybe if you weren't such a psycho you could
have had something different with both Dawn and Linda.
We can't make a Cadillac out of a Yugo. Like I told you years ago Davey - we
can't and WON'T help a nut case like you.
TNKev
[...]
> G > Kev, You keep asserting that presenting
> G > public records is stalking. Why is that?
>
> TNKev > searching out said public records and
> TNKev > posting them over and over again is
> TNKev > stalking and harassment.
>
[...]
>
> KW > I'm not Kevin,
>
> Can you prove that?
HAHAHAHAHA!
I can prove it...Kent can prove it too.
what would I do to prove it?
[...]
>
> When one had positive comments the webmaster
> was outed and harassed immediately by your associates.
you mean the one that was created for Kenny-Bob like the day before he
posted a link?
the one that is gone now?
TNKev
>
> my Kent Wills stalking saga continues
>
stalker
snickers
Kent's conviction is well documented young lady. Why do you idolize a two
bit garagae burglar, as yourself that.
snickers
You are a hurt and wounded soul, Moe Tillis.
Bob would help you to wash away that pain and live a new life through
Christ.
Why do you deny his aid?
Kent Wills
>
>"Kunt Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:6ll704piekud76856...@4ax.com...
>
>>>And posting them also on a website like your PAL Moore?????
>>>
>>>Please explain to me how THAT is "different" Kevin.
>>>
>>
>> I'm not Kevin, but I think I can answer.
>> David is trying to protect people from your con game. He doesn't
>> want to see people lose a great deal of money paying you for worthless
>> consultations.
>> Those who have commented on you have said you're assistance was
>> worthless.
>
> Who are they Kunt? The FICTIONAL folks on the Moore website? People made
>up by DAVID MOORE?
If Thomas is fictional, why did you threaten to make all his
information available?
"Thomas, Wilbur Streett is suggesting that you will start posting
attacks on me in alt.dads-rights. If you do so, your right to
confidentiality will be blown. Do you really want to do that? "
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn of KRP Consulting threatening an
unhappy former client.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/plumboy.html
>Like "Will Rainey" a character named after "William
>Rainey Harper" college that is just a few miles of the old Moore homestead
>that he lost to foreclosure some years ago? People who NEVER actually used
>my services Kunt?
If Thomas never used your serves, why did you threaten him?
>Yet even in Dean Tong's BOOKS he credits the A-Team. You
>have SERIOUS SERIOUS SERIOUS problems with support that particular MOORE
>claim Kunt. The REAL track record is there and all YOU have is PSYCHO DAVID
>MOORE.
>
I have YOUR comments confirming that former clients have posted
about you. And the comments those clients have made are all negative.
--
"We'd like to arrange for YOUR rape..."
--Kenneth Robert Pangborn of KRP Consulting, from an argument with a
woman on the talk.rape newsgroup
Kent Wills
>DAVID WHACKO MOORE
>"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
>news:618b1750f607ac2c...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>>KW > but I think I can answer.
>>>KW >=A0David is trying to protect people from
>>>KW > your con game. =A0He doesn't want to
>>>KW > see people lose a great deal of money
>>>KW > paying you for worthless consultations.
>>
>>>How would Dave know?
>>>He was never a client of Ken Pangborn!
>
>> Because I have heard it from not one, not two, but several people who were
>> former clients of Ken. The story is always pretty much the same, and
>> according to each of them, he behaves exactly the same way he does on
>> usenet.
>
>Sorry Davey you are LYING! LYING YOUR ASS OFF. The people you list were NOT
>former clients of mine.
Why did you threaten Wilbur then? Are you telling us you were
lying when you confirmed that he was a client?
>Will Rainey as ONE example is a person YOU created.
Can you prove this?
>Mr. Lueck was never actually a client. That was a situation HE created. Tom
>Walsh WAS and he WON. All we have is third party posts claiming he was
>unhappy.
>
>With regard to Tom's case. Only two things can be true.Given the history of
>the case, and the results, (criminal charges dismissed with prejudice, 50%
>custody and peace with his ex) $6,000 would be a bargain ANY dad in a
>similar situation can only dream of. Even the materials posted admit the
>FACTS Davey. When he came to us he hadn't seen his daughter in almost 18
>months. He was facing 20 years in prison for something he did NOT do and he
>had one of the most powerful feminazi psychologists in America testifying
>against him. He had a great settlement in his divorce and that psychologist
>got suspended from practice and has a HUGE HIT on her licenses in New Jersey
>and Colorado. She no longer testifies as an expert. NOTHING? WORTHLESS?
>Davey your bitterness is that you never had the opportunity to get
>"worthless" help like that. Maybe if you weren't such a psycho you could
>have had something different with both Dawn and Linda.
>
>We can't make a Cadillac out of a Yugo. Like I told you years ago Davey - we
>can't and WON'T help a nut case like you.
>
>
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
Kent Wills
>Greegor wrote:
>[...]
>> G > Kev, You keep asserting that presenting
>> G > public records is stalking. Why is that?
>>
>> TNKev > searching out said public records and
>> TNKev > posting them over and over again is
>> TNKev > stalking and harassment.
>>
>
>[...]
>>
>> KW > I'm not Kevin,
>>
>> Can you prove that?
>
>HAHAHAHAHA!
>
>I can prove it...Kent can prove it too.
Many can, actually.
>
>what would I do to prove it?
>
>
>[...]
>>
>> When one had positive comments the webmaster
>> was outed and harassed immediately by your associates.
>
>
>you mean the one that was created for Kenny-Bob like the day before he
>posted a link?
>
>the one that is gone now?
I've not paid any attention to it since the link was first
posted.
It's gone now? Interesting.
--
Bless me, Father, for I have committed an original sin.
I poked a badger with a spoon.
Kent Wills
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:8tu704drjp4pn5jr7...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 14 Apr 2008 17:25:43 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
>> <Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>KW > but I think I can answer.
>>KW > David is trying to protect people from
>>KW > your con game. He doesn't want to
>>KW > see people lose a great deal of money
>>KW > paying you for worthless consultations
>
>>>How would Dave know?He was never a client of Ken Pangborn!
>>
>> I presume he used the comments of those who were. Some of those
>> comments can be found on http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>
>
> Your PROBLEM Kunt is that with ONE exception NONE of those people
>actually WERE clients of mine, they were MADE UP by Moore.
Prove it.
>One name is of a
>guy who never actually used my services. The one REAL client mentioned did
>NOT (apparently) write the statements claimed to be his.
Yet you confirmed he was a client. Odd that.
>The real
>information, showing they were posted through another man also NOT one of my
>clients have been stripped by Moore. The interesting thing, as WIKIPEDIA
>found is that the SHIT on that website FAILS TO VERIFY.
Once again, they found the article to be a hit piece. It wasn't
a matter of verification.
>Meaning they do NOT
>appear as originals on Google. They appear first within posts by Moore or
>someone else.
>
> Now let's take the ONE.
Would this be Thomas?
>Where the alleged former client complains he
>didn't get anything for his $6,000.
"So, go ahead Ken, tell everyone what I got for $7,000.00!"
Seems you have difficulty with numbers.
>Let's look at where the guy WAS
>(admittedly) he was under criminal indictment facing a 20 year sentence. He
>had not seen his daughter in almost 18 months. His own lawyers in New Jersey
>told him that he was "screwed" that he was going to lose, do prison time,
>and never see his child again. At the end of our involvement (including TWO
>major Universities - University of Georgia and University of Utah) the
>criminal charges were dismissed with prejudice (can't be brought back) he
>ended his divorce amicably (with our help) and 50% custody. The psychologist
>(feminazi) that had torpedoed him was suspended from practice both in New
>Jersey and Colorado.
>
> What dad in similar circumstances would say that such an OUTCOME was
>"worthless?" Tell me Kunt - IF you were in that circumstance and then at
>the end got THAT result would YOU say it was worthless?
I would NEVER hire you for anything.
>How many dads do you
>think there are who spent 10 times that and still lost? Of course it costs
>more today, but we DO MORE today.
You have new methods of conning people?
>
> Your problem, asswipe, is that you rely on Moore's website to do your
>thinking for you. He's full of shit and SO ARE YOU punk!
>
I actually looked up the posts on Google. You'll note that David
links to them so that those who wish can verify accuracy.
Kent Wills
[...]
>
>You are a hurt and wounded soul, Moe Tillis.
>
By their fruits shall you know them.
Your fruit is rotten.
>Bob would help you to wash away that pain and live a new life through
>Christ.
Lar$on doesn't have that kind of authority.
>
>Why do you deny his aid?
Lar$on can do nothing.
--
A: Maybe because some people are too annoyed by top-posting.
Q: Why do I not get an answer to my question(s)?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
freedom
On Tue, 15 Apr 2008, " krp" <krp2...@verizon.net> wrote:
>DAVID WHACKO MOORE
More projection, I see....
>"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
>news:618b1750f607ac2c...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
>
>>>KW > but I think I can answer.
>>>KW >=A0David is trying to protect people from
>>>KW > your con game. =A0He doesn't want to
>>>KW > see people lose a great deal of money
>>>KW > paying you for worthless consultations.
>>
>>>How would Dave know?
>>>He was never a client of Ken Pangborn!
>
>> Because I have heard it from not one, not two, but several people who were
>> former clients of Ken. The story is always pretty much the same, and
>> according to each of them, he behaves exactly the same way he does on
>> usenet.
>
>Sorry Davey you are LYING! LYING YOUR ASS OFF. The people you list were NOT
>former clients of mine. Will Rainey as ONE example is a person YOU created.
No, I didn't.
>Mr. Lueck was never actually a client. That was a situation HE created.
Yes, by sending you $3000 under the foolish assumption that you would
actually provide professional services for it.
> Tom
>Walsh WAS and he WON. All we have is third party posts claiming he was
>unhappy.
He posted to usenet from his plu...@aol.com account. This can still be
found in Google. Next lie, please?
>
>With regard to Tom's case. Only two things can be true.Given the history of
>the case, and the results, (criminal charges dismissed with prejudice, 50%
>custody and peace with his ex) $6,000 would be a bargain ANY dad in a
>similar situation can only dream of. Even the materials posted admit the
>FACTS Davey. When he came to us he hadn't seen his daughter in almost 18
>months. He was facing 20 years in prison for something he did NOT do and he
>had one of the most powerful feminazi psychologists in America testifying
>against him. He had a great settlement in his divorce and that psychologist
>got suspended from practice and has a HUGE HIT on her licenses in New Jersey
>and Colorado. She no longer testifies as an expert. NOTHING? WORTHLESS?
>Davey your bitterness is that you never had the opportunity to get
>"worthless" help like that. Maybe if you weren't such a psycho you could
>have had something different with both Dawn and Linda.
For this to happen, I would have also had to have actually met "Dawn" and
"Linda." I've never had any form of relationship with anyone by either of
those names.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
The truth about Kenneth Pangborn, who supports convicted child sex
criminals
"If you call the police, I'll knock out all of your teeth, I'll cripple
you. I may go to prison for it, but when I get out, I'll be able to walk,
but you will still be a cripple."
- --Pangborn puppet Greg Hanson of alt.support.child-protective-services **,
in a verbal threat to his girlfriend
"...my aunt wouldnt come over to our house anymore because of how he would
talk to her and come on to her....and he had over 180 pictures of her on
his computer"
- --Ken Pangborn's former stepdaughter Megan, on growing up in the Pangborn
household
** - this conclusion was reached via applying Ken and Greg's logic
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: N/A
iQA/AwUBSATo+6bdsu4taRc6EQLhnwCbBeYHIpSIlCO+mg1hXwSPfLIrA3cAn2lk
WSNJ158TnU0gde6BVpEQu7bv
=E5uF
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----