Re: Kennie lied about his AF service according to military EXPERT Maureen McAllister
krp
"womanGoddess" <fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a88cb27d-91b3-4d79...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>> >MOE> Not specifically no, but the discussion was proving your AF
service
>> >MOE> honorable discharge claims.
>>
>> > Not in ANY way, McAllister. Jusdt DISPROVING - YOURE claims that I did
>> >NOT serve honorably!!
>>
>> You've offered NOTHING to support the claim you did.
>
> MOE> Agreed. All he's been doing is trying to present a wall certificate,
> MOE> a piece of paper he admits was a replacement for the original, as "
> MOE> proof".
Which according to YOU the Air Force hands out to anyone who asks
whether they served or not.
womanGoddess
> "womanGoddess" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Liar. I never said that.
Show the post proving your claim Kennie.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
Know your scum--- http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
krp
On Dec 21, 3:44 am, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> "womanGoddess" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a88cb27d-91b3-4d79...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> >> >MOE> Not specifically no, but the discussion was proving your AF
> service
>
> >> >MOE> honorable discharge claims.
>
> >> > Not in ANY way, McAllister. Jusdt DISPROVING - YOURE claims that I
> >> > did
> >> >NOT serve honorably!!
>
> >> You've offered NOTHING to support the claim you did.
>
> > MOE> Agreed. All he's been doing is trying to present a wall
> > certificate,
> > MOE> a piece of paper he admits was a replacement for the original, as "
> > MOE> proof".
>
> Which according to YOU the Air Force hands out to anyone who asks
> whether they served or not.
MOE> Liar. I never said that.
You said it (DD-256 AF) is MEANINGLESS and does NOT prove one served
honorably. A FACT CLAIM, McAllister.
womanGoddess
> "womanGoddess" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:82b19095-4336-47d1...@s20g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 21, 3:44 am, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > "womanGoddess" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:a88cb27d-91b3-4d79...@d20g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> > >> >MOE> Not specifically no, but the discussion was proving your AF
> > service
>
> > >> >MOE> honorable discharge claims.
>
> > >> > Not in ANY way, McAllister. Jusdt DISPROVING - YOURE claims that I
> > >> > did
> > >> >NOT serve honorably!!
>
> > >> You've offered NOTHING to support the claim you did.
>
> > > MOE> Agreed. All he's been doing is trying to present a wall
> > > certificate,
> > > MOE> a piece of paper he admits was a replacement for the original, as "
> > > MOE> proof".
>
> > Which according to YOU the Air Force hands out to anyone who asks
> > whether they served or not.
>
> MOE> Liar. I never said that.
>
> You said it (DD-256 AF) is MEANINGLESS and does NOT prove one served
> honorably. A FACT CLAIM, McAllister.
Liar.
No I did NOT say it was " meaningless"
Show the post where I said that Kennie.
Go on, show the post.
Greegor
womanGoddess
> Moe, Hold your breath and jump up and down! LOL
Is that how you were in court over CPS, Greg?
Or how you acted in your other court cases.
Tell your master Kennie to do his won crap work instead of using you
as his patsy.
Kent Wills
wrote:
I've seen no such claim from Moe. Unless you've been caught in
yet ANOTHER of your MANY drunken lies, you'll post the MID and/or
Google link to just one post from Moe making such a claim.
I expect you to admit, either directly or by default, that you've
been caught in another of your many drunken lies.
"Sometimes Greg is sloppy with things like that. I would agree the
significance of the difference may be just a wee bit over his head"
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn, alcoholic (according to him)
owner/operator of KRP CONsulting and The A-Team commenting on his ONLY
on-line friend, Gregory Scott Hanson.
Kent Wills
wrote:
She stated it's not accepted by certain organizations. One
example Moe gave is the VFW. Not the same thing as you are
deceptively trying to present.
Would you care to explain just why you're LYING about Moe's
claim, or will you going to run away and hide in a bottle of booze
again? The choice is yours.
"I am insane!"
--Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-team,
posting to alt.dads-rights.unmoderated claiming that he was found
legally insane.
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Dec 21, 10:17�pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Moe, Hold your breath and jump up and down! � LOL
>
> Is that how you were in court over CPS, Greg?
>
> Or how you acted in your other court cases.
>
It's how he acted when the Supreme Court for the State of Iowa
REFUSED to hear any arguments when his appeal was filed.
One has to be VERY guilty to have the court REFUSE to hear any
appeal arguments.
Depending on the level of illegal drugs in Greg's system, he will
claim that I filed an appeal for a burglary conviction. Of course
I've never done so, as Greg admitted during a rare fit of honesty.
The appeal he cites didn't result in the verdict being over
turned, but at least arguments were presented. Guilt for the person
Greg LIES and claims is me wasn't so totally proved that arguments
were refused.
> Tell your master Kennie to do his won crap work instead of using you
>as his patsy.
>
Pangborn has a very low opinion of Greg. And rightly so.
Because of this, Ken is more than willing to allow Greg to be
"shot down" over any matter.
A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott "Piggly
Wiggly" Hanson (either directly or through the same standards he
DEMANDS be held to others):
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, by
attacking my first wife (deceased).
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child abuser:
"Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child
abuser
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
triumphantly.
--a true story
As of Sunday, Nov. 29, 2009:
Financials
Title: STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREG SCOTT
Case: 06571 AGCR015216 (LINN)
Citation Number:
Summary Orig Paid Due
COSTS 9200.00 850.00 8350.00
FINE 500.00 500.00 0.00
SURCHARGE 150.00 150.00 0.00
RESTITUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00
OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00
$9850.00 $1500.00 $8350.00
Yes, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson still owes over
$8000.00 related to his convictions for BEATING his ex-wife.
"I am now a "founded" child abuser for making a
7 year old take a fast cold shower."
-- Gregory Scot "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson bragging in MID
<cu6H6.14493$3c6.3...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com>
krp
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:pn41j51bmdahrrs6k...@4ax.com...
>> You said it (DD-256 AF) is MEANINGLESS and does NOT prove one served
>>honorably. A FACT CLAIM, McAllister.
> She stated it's not accepted by certain organizations. One
> example Moe gave is the VFW.
Hey POLACK!!!! Why would the VFW want more than a discharge? Do you
think the FOREIGN WARS thing might have a LITTLE to do with that? HUH,
POLACK? A requirement to be in the VFW is that you actually fought in a
FOREIGN WAR. What part of that does not penetrate your cement SKULL, Polack?
Let's remind ourselves that YOU never served either your native Poland
or the United States military. Not even for a second. Your closest tie to
the military has been walking PAST the recruiting offices in the strip
malls. You're not qualified to have an opinion on this Wills.
womanGoddess
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:pn41j51bmdahrrs6k...@4ax.com...
>
> >> You said it (DD-256 AF) is MEANINGLESS and does NOT prove one served
> >>honorably. A FACT CLAIM, McAllister.
> > She stated it's not accepted by certain organizations. One
> > example Moe gave is the VFW.
>
> Hey POLACK!!!! Why would the VFW want more than a discharge? Do you
> think the FOREIGN WARS thing might have a LITTLE to do with that? HUH,
> POLACK? A requirement to be in the VFW is that you actually fought in a
> FOREIGN WAR. What part of that does not penetrate your cement SKULL, Polack?
Which a DD-214 would prove Kennie.
Your hysteria rambling doesn't give you credibility.
>
> Let's remind ourselves that YOU never served either your native Poland
> or the United States military. Not even for a second. Your closest tie to
> the military has been walking PAST the recruiting offices in the strip
> malls. You're not qualified to have an opinion on this Wills.
And you are?
Bear in mind that _I_ EXPOSED YOUR LIES about your claims about your
military service.
Anyone who is interested in the subject can go online to find sources
about this, not just people who served in the military.
You have shown that just because someone had a tour of duty in the
military does NOT mean that that person knows diddly squat. The thread
where you argue a winnable nuclear wae in Viet Nam is one such
example. You postured in soc.veterans that such an action was winnable
and one person there who was in the military for longer than you
showed you to be a damn fool.
Which, OC, you are.
womanGoddess
Your edited DD-156 as supplied by you in a photo of the the paper at
an angle rather than a flatbed scan had your rank redacted. there also
was another spaoce redacted on the paper.
The second whited out space was around the specifics of your
discharge.
One thought occurred to me that you got a Article 15 discharge.
The redacted words next to " honorable" might be " less than".
See Kennie, even the wall certificate serves to discredit you.
But then you could resolve this by providing your DD-214 for public
inspecton.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:pn41j51bmdahrrs6k...@4ax.com...
>
>>> You said it (DD-256 AF) is MEANINGLESS and does NOT prove one served
>>>honorably. A FACT CLAIM, McAllister.
>
>> She stated it's not accepted by certain organizations. One
>> example Moe gave is the VFW.
>
> Hey POLACK!!!!
HEY BIGOT!!!! (That's you, Kenneth Robert Pangborn)
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>Why would the VFW want more than a discharge?
Because, according to the local chapter, a discharge only proves
the person in question was in the military. It doesn't prove they
were involved in any foreign war or conflict.
>Do you
>think the FOREIGN WARS thing might have a LITTLE to do with that?
Of course it does.
BTW, you do realize you're proving Moe correct when she stated
that the VFW won't accept the DD-256, right?
>HUH,
>POLACK?
That you're a bigot is well PROVED. All anyone with an interest
needs to do is visit one page on the Kenneth Robert Pangborn TRUTH
site to see a very small sample of the PROOF you've offered in the
past.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
I encourage anyone who hasn't already done so to explore the whole
TRUTH site. Learn all about Kenneth Robert Pangborn and his many,
many drunken lies.
The proof presented on the site consists mostly of Pangborn's own
writings, so he can't claim them to be lies unless he admits he lied
in each and every post.
Links to Pangborn's posts on Google are presented to check
accuracy and context whenever possible. Do keep in mind that Pangborn
claims, and clearly believes, David Moore can and does edit posts
archived on Google (see sig).
>A requirement to be in the VFW is that you actually fought in a
>FOREIGN WAR.
Then you are admitting that you never served in SEA, a "war"
zone? Or did you opt out of active duty before it rose to that level?
The word war is in quotes because it was a conflict and not a
war. Of course, the bullets and bombs didn't know the difference.
>What part of that does not penetrate your cement SKULL, Polack?
When, outside of your DRUNKEN need to PROVE you are a
pathological liar, have I claimed anything you present?
>
> Let's remind ourselves that YOU never served either your native Poland
>or the United States military.
Prove it. Unless you're simply making up facts, you'll be able to
prove your FACT CLAIM.
>Not even for a second. Your closest tie to
>the military has been walking PAST the recruiting offices in the strip
>malls.
You are no longer able to be honest, huh?
>You're not qualified to have an opinion on this Wills.
>
Everyone is qualified to have an opinion on any matter. It may
not be an informed opinion, but in this case I am informed.
I've checked with the local VFW chapter. A DD-256 is NOT
acceptable for membership. One would need to supply a certified copy
of their DD-214, or other official documentation, that proves the
person served in a foreign war or conflict. Yes, they are Veterans of
Foreign Wars, but they accept people who served in actions that would
include, but not limited to, the Korean Conflict.
So tell us again, why did you redact your rank from the DD-256,
and what was in the second empty space that you redacted?
Sure looks like you had something to hide, and knew that if you
"shopped," it you would get caught, as you have been before.
By the way, it does not go unnoticed that you scream like you've
been personally insulted when you are caught in yet another lie. It's
quite cute.
So what was your rank upon discharge from ACTIVE duty, Ken?
And what conditions of discharge did you remove also from the
DD-256?
We all know that the word "Honorable," alone can still be
conditional. That would show up on a DD-214 quite clearly. Care to
continue to hide your real service record, your full service record as
given on a DD-214?
"you are reading Moore's SELECTIVE material that is HIGHLY edited."
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn, alcoholic (according to him)
owner/operator of KRP CONsulting and The A-Team claiming in misc.legal
that David Moore can and does edit Google's Usenet archive.
Message-ID: <n9Sfm.1372$nh2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>>
>> Let's remind ourselves that YOU never served either your native Poland
>> or the United States military. Not even for a second. Your closest tie to
>> the military has been walking PAST the recruiting offices in the strip
>> malls. You're not qualified to have an opinion on this Wills.
>
> And you are?
Everyone is.
>
>Bear in mind that _I_ EXPOSED YOUR LIES about your claims about your
>military service.
>
> Anyone who is interested in the subject can go online to find sources
>about this, not just people who served in the military.
I called the local chapter of the VFW and asked. The gentleman
with whom I spoke told me a DD-256 is NOT acceptable for membership. A
DD-214 can be.
There are other documents that can be used, but since we're
focusing on the DD-256 and DD-214, they won't apply to this
discussion.
>
> You have shown that just because someone had a tour of duty in the
>military does NOT mean that that person knows diddly squat. The thread
>where you argue a winnable nuclear wae in Viet Nam is one such
>example. You postured in soc.veterans that such an action was winnable
>and one person there who was in the military for longer than you
>showed you to be a damn fool.
I'd still like to know why, after six years, Pangborn only got as
far as airman first class (if he even reached first class).
>
>Which, OC, you are.
A simple TRUTH Ken Pangborn proves nearly every day.
"Maybe he's like me to attach some kiddie porn to aid his fantasies"
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn, alcoholic (according to him)
owner/operator of KRP CONsulting and The A-Team, expressing his
fondness for child porn in Message-ID:
<RECUi.494$Q%3.238@trnddc04>
krp
> Which according to YOU the Air Force hands out to anyone who asks
> whether they served or not.
MOE> Your edited DD-156 as supplied by you in a photo of the the paper at
MOE> an angle rather than a flatbed scan had your rank redacted. there also
MOE> was another spaoce redacted on the paper.
There is NO SUCH FORM as a DD-156. I showed a DD-256AF a discharge from
the United States Air Force. I said I redacted the rank and serial number
before I posted it.
MOE> The second whited out space was around the specifics of your
discharge.
There are NO specifics of a discharge on a DD-256AF.
MOE> One thought occurred to me that you got a Article 15 discharge.
There is NO SUCH THING as an "Article 15 Discharge" in the Air Force or
ANY branch of the military, Maureen, as always you are a BRAT who *THINKS*
she's a military expert.
Mentions the equivalent of a traffic court process where a commanding
officer can impose punishment for a very MINOR offense.
The redacted words next to " honorable" might be " less than".
All but for the problem is that NOTHING was redacted next to the word
HONORABLE, Maureen, you are LYING AGAIN!
MOE> See Kennie, even the wall certificate serves to discredit you.
You can LIE about anything, and you prove that again here.
http://www.diplomaframe.com/product/12645_us_air_force_honorable_discharge_certificate_frame_in_metro.cfm
A generic form as to a discharge for ALL branches.
The FACTS are I was given an HONORABLE discharge and my re-enlistment
category was "1"! At the time of release from Active duty I was transfered
to the "Ready Reserve" in Category "A" which your alleged ACE Daddy might
be able to explain to you. Discharge under SDN 411. You can look that up
too, but the answer won't suit your bullshit claims about me.
MOE> But then you could resolve this by providing your DD-214 for public
inspecton.
Not in THIS lifetime, Maureen, given the example of your LYING about my
DD-256. Such as the WHOPPER that next to the words HONORABLE DISCHARGE the
words "LESS THAN" were removed. An insult to every Veteran who ever served
honorably, McAllister. View the example of a GENERIC discharge in the link I
provided above. There is NO SUCH DISCHARGE as one that says "LESS THAN
HONORABLE" there IS a category for that just NOT a certificate. Everyone has
seen how you MAKE SHIT UP (lie) and if you think I am going to hand you a
"field day" of things to misrepresent you have another guess coming.
lostintranslation
>
> MOE> One thought occurred to me that you got a Article 15 discharge.
>
> There is NO SUCH THING as an "Article 15 Discharge" in the Air Force or
> ANY branch of the military, Maureen, as always you are a BRAT who *THINKS*
> she's a military expert.
>
>
Oh Ken, please tell me you stand by these words as absolute truth!
Again fatboy, you are wrong...so very very wrong. This is one
argument, Ken you do NOT want to tangle with me on. Believe me, I
will beat your fat ass around the playground.
womanGoddess
> "womanGoddess" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9b4fab12-dc22-4cb3...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Which according to YOU the Air Force hands out to anyone who asks
> > whether they served or not.
>
> MOE> Your edited DD-156 as supplied by you in a photo of the the paper at
> MOE> an angle rather than a flatbed scan had your rank redacted. there also
> MOE> was another spaoce redacted on the paper.
>
> There is NO SUCH FORM as a DD-156.
I admit it. I made a typo. You know as well as I do I was referring
to the 256, but as usual for you you leap on any excuse to avoid your
own lies.
> I showed a DD-256AF a discharge from
> the United States Air Force. I said I redacted the rank and serial number
> before I posted it.
You redacted something. What you SAID you redacted is not the same
as what you ACTUALLY redacted. You lie too much to be trusted at your
word alone.
>
> MOE> The second whited out space was around the specifics of your
> discharge.
>
> There are NO specifics of a discharge on a DD-256AF.
Then why did you white it out?
>
> MOE> One thought occurred to me that you got a Article 15 discharge.
>
> There is NO SUCH THING as an "Article 15 Discharge" in the Air Force or
> ANY branch of the military, Maureen, as always you are a BRAT who *THINKS*
> she's a military expert.
Actually there is an Article 15, and I showed it by posting the web
address.
Are you so damn stupid you respond before reading the whole post
first?
Guess you are...
>
> MOE>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org....
>
> Mentions the equivalent of a traffic court process where a commanding
> officer can impose punishment for a very MINOR offense.
>
> The redacted words next to " honorable" might be " less than".
>
> All but for the problem is that NOTHING was redacted next to the word
> HONORABLE, Maureen, you are LYING AGAIN!
You can solve this issue by making your 214 publically available for
viewing.
>
> MOE> See Kennie, even the wall certificate serves to discredit you.
>
> You can LIE about anything, and you prove that again here.
Projection noted. This coming from a habitual liar named Kenneth
Pangborn.
>
> http://www.diplomaframe.com/product/12645_us_air_force_honorable_disc...
> A generic form as to a discharge for ALL branches.
>
> The FACTS are I was given an HONORABLE discharge and my re-enlistment
> category was "1"! At the time of release from Active duty I was transfered
> to the "Ready Reserve" in Category "A" which your alleged ACE Daddy might
> be able to explain to you. Discharge under SDN 411. You can look that up
> too, but the answer won't suit your bullshit claims about me.
You can PROVE it by showing your 214 Kennie. All your noise claiming
otherwise means nothing since you compulsively lie.
>
> MOE> But then you could resolve this by providing your DD-214 for public
> inspecton.
>
> Not in THIS lifetime, Maureen, given the example of your LYING about my
> DD-256. Such as the WHOPPER that next to the words HONORABLE DISCHARGE the
> words "LESS THAN" were removed. An insult to every Veteran who ever served
> honorably, McAllister. View the example of a GENERIC discharge in the link I
> provided above. There is NO SUCH DISCHARGE as one that says "LESS THAN
> HONORABLE" there IS a category for that just NOT a certificate. Everyone has
> seen how you MAKE SHIT UP (lie) and if you think I am going to hand you a
> "field day" of things to misrepresent you have another guess coming.
Or maybe you can't Photoshop a forgery like you did with your
boarding pass to Cuba.
Years ago you offered your DD-214 to anyone who asked. Now you refuse
to do so.
Sure sounds like you are hiding a few things.
womanGoddess
womanGoddess
> "womanGoddess" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9b4fab12-dc22-4cb3...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Which according to YOU the Air Force hands out to anyone who asks
> > whether they served or not.
>
> MOE> Your edited DD-156 as supplied by you in a photo of the the paper at
> MOE> an angle rather than a flatbed scan had your rank redacted. there also
> MOE> was another spaoce redacted on the paper.
>
> There is NO SUCH FORM as a DD-156. I showed a DD-256AF a discharge from
> the United States Air Force. I said I redacted the rank and serial number
> before I posted it.
I think you claimed when you first did it that it was " private"
information.. Problem is that rank and serial number are not private
info.
Your intention to redact your rank and serial number serve only to
hide something. Anyone who might under the FOIA can access that
legally can provide a serial number. And YOU OC, have said you don't
want prying eyes into your service record.
Sure looks like you are hiding a few things. Hiding your serial
number has no effect on your privacy excuse.
>
> MOE> The second whited out space was around the specifics of your
> discharge.
>
> There are NO specifics of a discharge on a DD-256AF.
Then you are admitting that your Dd-256 is in fact NOT proof of your
specific discharge Kennie? It is not an indicator of the conditions
under " honorable". and yet you tried to use your 256 as if it would
do exactly that.
>
> MOE> One thought occurred to me that you got a Article 15 discharge.
>
> There is NO SUCH THING as an "Article 15 Discharge" in the Air Force or
> ANY branch of the military, Maureen, as always you are a BRAT who *THINKS*
> she's a military expert.
>
> MOE>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org....
>
> Mentions the equivalent of a traffic court process where a commanding
> officer can impose punishment for a very MINOR offense.
>
> The redacted words next to " honorable" might be " less than".
>
> All but for the problem is that NOTHING was redacted next to the word
> HONORABLE, Maureen, you are LYING AGAIN!
>
> MOE> See Kennie, even the wall certificate serves to discredit you.
>
> You can LIE about anything, and you prove that again here.
>
> http://www.diplomaframe.com/product/12645_us_air_force_honorable_disc...
> A generic form as to a discharge for ALL branches.
>
> The FACTS are I was given an HONORABLE discharge and my re-enlistment
> category was "1"! At the time of release from Active duty I was transfered
> to the "Ready Reserve" in Category "A" which your alleged ACE Daddy might
> be able to explain to you. Discharge under SDN 411. You can look that up
> too, but the answer won't suit your bullshit claims about me.
>
> MOE> But then you could resolve this by providing your DD-214 for public
> inspection.
>
> Not in THIS lifetime, Maureen, given the example of your LYING about my
> DD-256. Such as the WHOPPER that next to the words HONORABLE DISCHARGE the
> words "LESS THAN" were removed. An insult to every Veteran who ever served
> honorably, McAllister. View the example of a GENERIC discharge in the link I
> provided above. There is NO SUCH DISCHARGE as one that says "LESS THAN
> HONORABLE" there IS a category for that just NOT a certificate. Everyone has
> seen how you MAKE SHIT UP (lie) and if you think I am going to hand you a
> "field day" of things to misrepresent you have another guess coming.
The issue has been about your claims about your AF service. Your
claims of an " honorable discharge" can only be substantiated by your
214, not your 256.
As I've said before, I've pretty much dissected some of your service
claims and found them to be not credible considering the facts, some
of which you yourself have provided for me.
krp
"lostintranslation" <lostintran...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:e0416e03-a655-4b7f...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>> MOE> One thought occurred to me that you got a Article 15 discharge.
>>
>> There is NO SUCH THING as an "Article 15 Discharge" in the Air Force or
>> ANY branch of the military, Maureen, as always you are a BRAT who
>> *THINKS*
>> she's a military expert.
>
> LIT> Oh Ken, please tell me you stand by these words as absolute truth!
> LIT> Again fatboy, you are wrong...so very very wrong. This is one
> LIT> argument, Ken you do NOT want to tangle with me on. Believe me, I
> LIT> will beat your fat ass around the playground.
Interesting challenge.
Take your best shot, Kim. An Article 15 is a "non-judicial punishment
for minor infractions." It is NOT a type of DISCHARGE.
http://usmilitary.about.com/od/justicelawlegislation/l/blucmj15.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nonjudicial_punishment
http://www.wood.army.mil/sja/TDS/article_15_fact_sheet.htm
Nowhere within the regulations does there come authority TO discharge
somebody for an "Article 15" violation. Usually pretty petty stuff. Such as
having alcohol in the barracks. Or wearing the wrong uniform for the day.
Like showing up in BDU's instead of a full dress uniform. (circumstances of
needing to be in dress Blues may be for many reasons).
Watch out for the "playground" baby. Unless you're into S&M.
krp
> > Which according to YOU the Air Force hands out to anyone who asks
> > whether they served or not.
>
> MOE> Your edited DD-156 as supplied by you in a photo of the the paper at
> MOE> an angle rather than a flatbed scan had your rank redacted. there
> also
> MOE> was another spaoce redacted on the paper.
>
> There is NO SUCH FORM as a DD-156.
MOE> I admit it. I made a typo. You know as well as I do I was referring
MOE> to the 256, but as usual for you you leap on any excuse to avoid your
MOE> own lies.
You are so QUICK and so LOUD harping on the typos of others. Can't take
what you dish out Maureen? Awwww POOR BAAYHBEE!
> I showed a DD-256AF a discharge from the United States Air Force. I said I
> redacted the rank and serial number
> before I posted it.
MOE> You redacted something. What you SAID you redacted is not the same
MOE> as what you ACTUALLY redacted. You lie too much to be trusted at your
MOE> word alone.
What I redacted was rank and serial nubber, Maureen YOU are the LIAR
here. Anyone who actually HAS a Discharge Certificate would KNOW what is in
the redacted fields and it NOT what a BRAT claims.
> MOE> The second whited out space was around the specifics of your
> discharge.
> There are NO specifics of a discharge on a DD-256AF.
MOE> Then why did you white it out?
I only redacted rank and serial number. Yor INSANE CLAIM that I redacted
the words "Less than" is just one more of your OBVIOUS LIES!
> MOE> One thought occurred to me that you got a Article 15 discharge.
> There is NO SUCH THING as an "Article 15 Discharge" in the Air Force or
> ANY branch of the military, Maureen, as always you are a BRAT who *THINKS*
> she's a military expert.
MOE> Actually there is an Article 15, and I showed it by posting the web
address.
No BIMBO - the URL you posted does NOT - repeat DOES NOT prove there is
such a thing as an "ARTICLE 15 DISCHARGE." In FACT it proves there isn't. An
Article 15 is "Non-judicial punishment" for a minor infraction. Such as but
NOT LIMITED TO a dirty barracks room, wrong uniform for the day. having beer
in the baracks, failing to salute an officer or things like that, it allows
a commanding officer to issue punishment but DOES NOT allow the authority to
DISCHARGE. Punative discharges are USUALLY done by a Court Martial. But in
some cases can be administrative, such as for BED WETTERS. Or those who have
other medical issues.
There IS an "Article 15" it just isn't a TYPE of discharge. And Maureen
a individual CANNOT be discharged because of an Article 15 infraction.
> MOE>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org....
> Mentions the equivalent of a traffic court process where a commanding
> officer can impose punishment for a very MINOR offense.
> The redacted words next to " honorable" might be " less than".
There are NO WORDS NEXT TO the words HONORABLE DISCHARGE. You are
INSANE! (No words redacted or otherwise.) For all yopur CLAIMED VAST
MILITARY EXPERTISE one would think that you would know that such information
does NOT appear on a discharge certificate. YOU ARE MAKING SHIT UP AGAIN!
> All but for the problem is that NOTHING was redacted next to the word
> HONORABLE, Maureen, you are LYING AGAIN!
MOE> You can solve this issue by making your 214 publically available for
viewing.
Nice TRY Maureen but no FISH are biting today. GFYS!
MOE> Or maybe you can't Photoshop a forgery like you did with your boarding
pass to Cuba.
There is NO EVIDENCE that the boarding pass WAS altered other than David
Moore's HYSTERICAL RANTING. It is still UP on my Photobucket page.
http://s283.photobucket.com/home/kenPphotos And I have made it PUBLIC just
for YOU to answer your BULLSHIT. The boarding passes are there, and as have
been documented before ALL of those flights are INDEPENDENTLY verifiable
unlike the BULLSHIT claims from DAVID MOORE, your pal. Feel FREE to INVENT
a claim that they have been altered like you have my DD-256.
I know you are UP to the task of lying your ass off, Maureen. GO FOR THE
GOLD show us how you can LIE your ass off again.
krp
On Dec 23, 3:50 am, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
> "womanGoddess" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:9b4fab12-dc22-4cb3...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > Which according to YOU the Air Force hands out to anyone who asks
> > whether they served or not.
>
> MOE> Your edited DD-156 as supplied by you in a photo of the the paper at
> MOE> an angle rather than a flatbed scan had your rank redacted. there
> also
> MOE> was another spaoce redacted on the paper.
>
> There is NO SUCH FORM as a DD-156. I showed a DD-256AF a discharge from
> the United States Air Force. I said I redacted the rank and serial number
> before I posted it.
MOE> I think you claimed when you first did it that it was " private"
MOE> information.. Problem is that rank and serial number are not private
info.
You mean there is a *LAW requiring me to divulge it? Name, rank and
serial number? What the fukkk do you think you are, the KGB?
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"womanGoddess" <fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:50d9aa1e-80f0-47a2...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > Which according to YOU the Air Force hands out to anyone who asks
>> > whether they served or not.
>>
>> MOE> Your edited DD-156 as supplied by you in a photo of the the paper at
>> MOE> an angle rather than a flatbed scan had your rank redacted. there
>> also
>> MOE> was another spaoce redacted on the paper.
>>
>> There is NO SUCH FORM as a DD-156.
>
> MOE> I admit it. I made a typo. You know as well as I do I was referring
>MOE> to the 256, but as usual for you you leap on any excuse to avoid your
>MOE> own lies.
>
> You are so QUICK and so LOUD harping on the typos of others. Can't take
>what you dish out Maureen? Awwww POOR BAAYHBEE!
She was able to admit her error, as any mature, mentally balanced
person would. YOU are compelled to add lies to distract from any
mistakes you made.
You aren't mature and/or mentally balanced, as PROVED by your NEED
to do as I've described.
>
>> I showed a DD-256AF a discharge from the United States Air Force. I said I
>> redacted the rank and serial number
>> before I posted it.
>
>MOE> You redacted something. What you SAID you redacted is not the same
>MOE> as what you ACTUALLY redacted. You lie too much to be trusted at your
>MOE> word alone.
>
> What I redacted was rank and serial nubber, Maureen YOU are the LIAR
>here. Anyone who actually HAS a Discharge Certificate would KNOW what is in
>the redacted fields and it NOT what a BRAT claims.
>
>> MOE> The second whited out space was around the specifics of your
>> discharge.
>
>> There are NO specifics of a discharge on a DD-256AF.
>
>MOE> Then why did you white it out?
>
> I only redacted rank and serial number. Yor INSANE CLAIM that I redacted
>the words "Less than" is just one more of your OBVIOUS LIES!
Moe made no such claim.
>
>> MOE> One thought occurred to me that you got a Article 15 discharge.
>
>> There is NO SUCH THING as an "Article 15 Discharge" in the Air Force or
>> ANY branch of the military, Maureen, as always you are a BRAT who *THINKS*
>> she's a military expert.
>
>MOE> Actually there is an Article 15, and I showed it by posting the web
>address.
>
> No BIMBO - the URL you posted does NOT - repeat DOES NOT prove there is
>such a thing as an "ARTICLE 15 DISCHARGE."
You need to read what' posted when you're sober. Of course, as
you consistently PROVE, you are rarely sober.
"(CONTEXT REMOVED AS TO THE BELOW CLAIM)"
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn, alcoholic (according to him)
owner/operator of KRP CONsulting and The A-Team accidentally admitting
he alters the context of posts when he replies.
MID FyUom.1363$Jd7....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net
Kent Wills
wrote:
You sure do LOVE the three K's, huh?
"Miranda was a STUPID WASTE OF TIME AND DID NOTHING!"
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn of KRP Consulting and The A-Team.
krp
>>> > Which according to YOU the Air Force hands out to anyone who asks
>>> > whether they served or not.
>>>
>>> MOE> Your edited DD-156 as supplied by you in a photo of the the paper
>>> at
>>> MOE> an angle rather than a flatbed scan had your rank redacted. there
>>> also
>>> MOE> was another spaoce redacted on the paper.
>>>
>>> There is NO SUCH FORM as a DD-156. I showed a DD-256AF a discharge from
>>> the United States Air Force. I said I redacted the rank and serial
>>> number
>>> before I posted it.
>>
>>MOE> I think you claimed when you first did it that it was " private"
>>MOE> information.. Problem is that rank and serial number are not private
>>info.
>>
>> You mean there is a *LAW requiring me to divulge it? Name, rank and
>>serial number? What the fukkk do you think you are, the KGB?
>
> You sure do LOVE the three K's, huh?
When speaking to the KLAN, use as many K's as possible. Hey, Kunt, did you
forget you ONLY post at 5 AM.
krp
>
>> > Which according to YOU the Air Force hands out to anyone who asks
>> > whether they served or not.
>>
>> MOE> Your edited DD-156 as supplied by you in a photo of the the paper at
>> MOE> an angle rather than a flatbed scan had your rank redacted. there
>> also
>> MOE> was another spaoce redacted on the paper.
>>
>> There is NO SUCH FORM as a DD-156.
>
> MOE> to the 256, but as usual for you you leap on any excuse to avoid
> your
> MOE> own lies.
>
> You are so QUICK and so LOUD harping on the typos of others. Can't take
> what you dish out Maureen? Awwww POOR BAAYHBEE!
>
>> I redacted the rank and serial number
>> before I posted it.
>
> MOE> as what you ACTUALLY redacted. You lie too much to be trusted at your
> MOE> word alone.
>
> in the redacted fields and it NOT what a BRAT claims.
>
>> MOE> The second whited out space was around the specifics of your
>> discharge.
>
>> There are NO specifics of a discharge on a DD-256AF.
>
> MOE> Then why did you white it out?
>
> I only redacted rank and serial number. Yor INSANE CLAIM that I
> redacted the words "Less than" is just one more of your OBVIOUS LIES!
>
>
>> There is NO SUCH THING as an "Article 15 Discharge" in the Air Force or
>> ANY branch of the military, Maureen, as always you are a BRAT who
>> *THINKS*
>> she's a military expert.
>
> MOE> Actually there is an Article 15, and I showed it by posting the web
> address.
>
> No BIMBO - the URL you posted does NOT - repeat DOES NOT prove there is
Greegor
G > Moe, Hold your breath and jump up and down! LOL
Greegor
KRP > There is NO SUCH THING as an "Article 15
KRP > Discharge" in the Air Force or ANY branch
KRP > of the military, Maureen, as always you are
KRP > a BRAT who *THINKS* she's a military expert.
LIT > Oh Ken, please tell me you stand by these words
LIT > as absolute truth! Again fatboy, you are wrong...so
LIT > very very wrong. This is one argument, Ken you
LIT > do NOT want to tangle with me on. Believe me, I
LIT > will beat your fat ass around the playground.
Ooh! Talkin' TRASH! LOL
Moe > Actually there is an Article 15, and I showed it
Moe > by posting the web address.
KRP wrote:
No BIMBO - the URL you posted does NOT - repeat DOES NOT prove there
is
such a thing as an "ARTICLE 15 DISCHARGE." In FACT it proves there
isn't. An
Article 15 is "Non-judicial punishment" for a minor infraction. Such
as but
NOT LIMITED TO a dirty barracks room, wrong uniform for the day.
having beer
in the baracks, failing to salute an officer or things like that, it
allows
a commanding officer to issue punishment but DOES NOT allow the
authority to
DISCHARGE. Punative discharges are USUALLY done by a Court Martial.
But in
some cases can be administrative, such as for BED WETTERS. Or those
who have
other medical issues.
There IS an "Article 15" it just isn't a TYPE of discharge. And
Maureen
a individual CANNOT be discharged because of an Article 15
infraction.
------
KRP > Which according to YOU the Air Force hands
KRP > out to anyone who asks whether they served or not.
Moe > Your edited DD-156 as supplied by you in a photo
Moe > of the the paper at an angle rather than a flatbed
Moe > scan had your rank redacted. there also was
Moe > another spaoce redacted on the paper.
KRP > There is NO SUCH FORM as a DD-156.
Moe > I admit it. I made a typo. You know as well as I
Moe > do I was referring to the 256, but as usual for
Moe > you you leap on any excuse to avoid your own lies.
Greegor
Kent Wills
wrote:
So you use so many K's to indicate your intense love for the Klan.
Got it.
>Hey, Kunt, did you
>forget you ONLY post at 5 AM.
>
When did I ever make such a claim? Hint: Never.
Feel free to prove I have, unless another of your MANY drunken
pathological lies has been exposed.
"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
womanGoddess
> Re: Moe WANTS Pangborn's discharge papers - VEE HAFF VAYS!
> G > Moe, Hold your breath and jump up and down! LOL
SSDD
womanGoddess
> "womanGoddess" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:50d9aa1e-80f0-47a2...@c3g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Which according to YOU the Air Force hands out to anyone who asks
> > > whether they served or not.
>
> > MOE> Your edited DD-156 as supplied by you in a photo of the the paper at
> > MOE> an angle rather than a flatbed scan had your rank redacted. there
> > also
> > MOE> was another spaoce redacted on the paper.
>
> > There is NO SUCH FORM as a DD-156.
>
> MOE> I admit it. I made a typo. You know as well as I do I was referring
> MOE> to the 256, but as usual for you you leap on any excuse to avoid your
> MOE> own lies.
>
> You are so QUICK and so LOUD harping on the typos of others. Can't take
> what you dish out Maureen? Awwww POOR BAAYHBEE!
You can't take what you dish out Kennie. Unlike you I know that this
crap online is not important to my life. You, OTOH NEED to be online
and do your batshit act
I don't deny I make mistakes, including typos.. You certainly make a
number of typos yourself for a man who supposedly had two cum laude
degrees. When you get in one of your shit fits you even missepllins
all caps, which is hilarious to me.
>
> > I showed a DD-256AF a discharge from the United States Air Force. I said I
> > redacted the rank and serial number
> > before I posted it.
>
> MOE> You redacted something. What you SAID you redacted is not the same
> MOE> as what you ACTUALLY redacted. You lie too much to be trusted at your
> MOE> word alone.
>
> What I redacted was rank and serial nubber, Maureen YOU are the LIAR
> here. Anyone who actually HAS a Discharge Certificate would KNOW what is in
> the redacted fields and it NOT what a BRAT claims.
" nubber" ? Is that a gay term?
>
> > MOE> The second whited out space was around the specifics of your
> > discharge.
> > There are NO specifics of a discharge on a DD-256AF.
>
> MOE> Then why did you white it out?
>
> I only redacted rank and serial number. Yor INSANE CLAIM that I redacted
> the words "Less than" is just one more of your OBVIOUS LIES!
Since you redacted the words how can I knowing lie what is actually
on your 256? Chances are you are lying- again.
>
> > MOE> One thought occurred to me that you got a Article 15 discharge.
> > There is NO SUCH THING as an "Article 15 Discharge" in the Air Force or
> > ANY branch of the military, Maureen, as always you are a BRAT who *THINKS*
> > she's a military expert.
>
> MOE> Actually there is an Article 15, and I showed it by posting the web
> address.
>
> No BIMBO - the URL you posted does NOT - repeat DOES NOT prove there is
> such a thing as an "ARTICLE 15 DISCHARGE." In FACT it proves there isn't. An
> Article 15 is "Non-judicial punishment" for a minor infraction. Such as but
> NOT LIMITED TO a dirty barracks room, wrong uniform for the day. having beer
> in the baracks, failing to salute an officer or things like that, it allows
> a commanding officer to issue punishment but DOES NOT allow the authority to
> DISCHARGE. Punative discharges are USUALLY done by a Court Martial. But in
> some cases can be administrative, such as for BED WETTERS. Or those who have
> other medical issues.
It details what Article 15 is, Kennie. Your noise is your usual
blathering nonsense. I do like your all caps shouting when there is no
rational reason for getting so upset.
If you have nothing to hid,e why make such a fuss about this?
>
> There IS an "Article 15" it just isn't a TYPE of discharge. And Maureen
> a individual CANNOT be discharged because of an Article 15 infraction.
>
> > MOE>http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&safe=off&client=firefox-a&rls=org....
> > Mentions the equivalent of a traffic court process where a commanding
> > officer can impose punishment for a very MINOR offense.
> > The redacted words next to " honorable" might be " less than".
>
> There are NO WORDS NEXT TO the words HONORABLE DISCHARGE. You are
> INSANE! (No words redacted or otherwise.) For all yopur CLAIMED VAST
> MILITARY EXPERTISE
Liar. I never claimed that.
>one would think that you would know that such information
> does NOT appear on a discharge certificate. YOU ARE MAKING SHIT UP AGAIN!
As opposed to when you " make shit up" in pretty near every post you
make Kennie?
>
> > All but for the problem is that NOTHING was redacted next to the word
> > HONORABLE, Maureen, you are LYING AGAIN!
>
> MOE> You can solve this issue by making your 214 publically available for
> viewing.
>
> Nice TRY Maureen but no FISH are biting today. GFYS!
Nice childish vulgarity Kennie. But to be expected from you.
As I've said before the only way this can be resolved is when you
authorize me or anyone else to see your actual DD-214. If you are
proud of your service record and you haven't lied, there should be no
problem for you allowing the public to see your service record.
>
> MOE> Or maybe you can't Photoshop a forgery like you did with your boarding
> pass to Cuba.
>
> There is NO EVIDENCE that the boarding pass WAS altered other than David
> Moore's HYSTERICAL RANTING. It is still UP on my Photobucket page.http://s283.photobucket.com/home/kenPphotosAnd I have made it PUBLIC just
> for YOU to answer your BULLSHIT. The boarding passes are there, and as have
> been documented before ALL of those flights are INDEPENDENTLY verifiable
> unlike the BULLSHIT claims from DAVID MOORE, your pal. Feel FREE to INVENT
> a claim that they have been altered like you have my DD-256.
> I know you are UP to the task of lying your ass off, Maureen. GO FOR THE
> GOLD show us how you can LIE your ass off again.
(( YAWNS)) From what I read the altered boarding pass wasn't your
only problem, There was also the issue of the airline and that it
didn't go to Cuba.
womanGoddess
> "womanGoddess" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:bfc7e101-b1f4-4df1...@r5g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 23, 3:50 am, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com> wrote:
>
> > "womanGoddess" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:9b4fab12-dc22-4cb3...@m16g2000yqc.googlegroups.com...
>
> > > Which according to YOU the Air Force hands out to anyone who asks
> > > whether they served or not.
>
> > MOE> Your edited DD-156 as supplied by you in a photo of the the paper at
> > MOE> an angle rather than a flatbed scan had your rank redacted. there
> > also
> > MOE> was another spaoce redacted on the paper.
>
> > There is NO SUCH FORM as a DD-156. I showed a DD-256AF a discharge from
> > the United States Air Force. I said I redacted the rank and serial number
> > before I posted it.
>
> MOE> I think you claimed when you first did it that it was " private"
> MOE> information.. Problem is that rank and serial number are not private
> info.
>
> You mean there is a *LAW requiring me to divulge it? Name, rank and
> serial number? What the fukkk do you think you are, the KGB?
From your claim I am one of the members of that " massive coalition
force" out to get you.
krp
MOE> As I've said before the only way this can be resolved is when you
MOE> authorize me or anyone else to see your actual DD-214. If you are
MOE> proud of your service record and you haven't lied, there should be no
MOE> problem for you allowing the public to see your service record.
Have a MERRY CHRISTMAS, Maureen. Oh wait, YOU can't, can you?
womanGoddess
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Kennie, most people have a life outside of usenet.
IOW not like you.
womanGoddess
> Moe, Did you try holding your breath and jumping up and down?
Greg here's an idea.
Why don't you ask Kennie to send YOU his DD-214?
If Kennie has nothing to hide, you can use the info in his 214 to
help him attack me.
He'll show you his 214, won't he Greg?
Ask him for it Greg. He can put it on his PhotoBucket account and
give you a password so you alone can see it. That way you can see the
truth.
But if he won't do that for your, shouldn't that make you suspicious?
Go on Greg. Ask him for it.
krp
On Dec 23, 6:25 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Moe, Did you try holding your breath and jumping up and down?
MOE> Greg here's an idea. Why don't you ask Kennie to send YOU his
DD-214?
My, Maureen, you ARE getting desperate!
MOE> If Kennie has nothing to hide, you can use the info in his 214 to help
him attack me.
How is that GENERAL McAllister?
MOE> He'll show you his 214, won't he Greg?
WHY? Just because YOU are HYSTERICAL wanting to see it?
Greegor
Moe > Greg here's an idea. Why don't you
Moe > ask Kennie to send YOU his DD-214?
KRP > My, Maureen, you ARE getting desperate!
Moe > If Kennie has nothing to hide, you can use
Moe > the info in his 214 to help him attack me.
I can use information from HIS discharge papers
to attack you? Your LOOPY!
KRP > How is that GENERAL McAllister?
Yeah, how would that supposedly work? LOL
Moe > He'll show you his 214, won't he Greg?
I think he already did, long ago, but it
wouldn't be easy to find in old e-mails.
KRP > WHY? Just because YOU
KRP > are HYSTERICAL wanting to see it?
Moe is just a stooge.
krp
"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:f020f87f-788f-4fb1...@a6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
G > Moe, Did you try holding your breath and jumping up and down?
Moe > Greg here's an idea. Why don't you
Moe > ask Kennie to send YOU his DD-214?
KRP > My, Maureen, you ARE getting desperate!
Moe > If Kennie has nothing to hide, you can use
Moe > the info in his 214 to help him attack me.
GH> I can use information from HIS discharge papers
GH> to attack you? Your LOOPY!
As if anyone needed anything more than her INSANE claims, such as her
moronic claim I got a Article 15 Discharge. See how she dropped that one?
What our grand inquistitor SO DESPERATELY NEEDS is omething else to
MISREPRESENT. Like her claim that the words "OTHER THAN" appear before the
words "HONORABLE DISCHARGE" on my DD-256AF. Maureen is the idiot gift that
just keeps on giving.
KRP > How is that GENERAL McAllister?
GH> Yeah, how would that supposedly work? LOL
Think you'll get an answer on that one?
Moe > He'll show you his 214, won't he Greg?
GH> I think he already did, long ago, but it
GH> wouldn't be easy to find in old e-mails.
I don't think so Greg. Pretty much shortly after the BULLSHIT from Moore
went into high gear 10 years ago, I stopped sharing private stuff.Knowing
what I do of the ambient INSANITY that is abundant on Usenet, my naive offer
to share such documentation was withdrawn. Also given the propensity of SOME
people to ALTER the materials. Such as "Percy Mincer" altering my boarding
pass to replace my name with HIS and insisting that HE went to Cuba NOT ME
and that I copied HIS documents.
Maureen is offering her EXPERT opinion that my boarding passes to Cuba
are FAKED. Photoshopped. Love how she makes wild claims with NO evidence
other than Quoting DAVID MOORE.
KRP > WHY? Just because YOU
KRP > are HYSTERICAL wanting to see it?
GH> Moe is just a stooge.
Maureen isn't smart enough to be a stooge. Perhaps she suffers from
Factitious Disorder by Proxy? She is just a post menopausal woman suffering
from a very severe case of HYSTERIA. She has so many things she desperately
NEEDS to believe in. Trying to follow her "logic" (a misnomer) can cause
insanity itself. It is twisted, mean spirited, and almost always illogical.
That's what makes it funny, her "logic" is "illogical."
Let's warp back to the genesis of this thread. That was MAUREEN'S claim
that I did NOT serve in the Air Force, followed by her backup position that
my service was "less than Honorable." I offered by DD-256AF showing an
"HONORABLE DISCHARGE" and she goes into her HISSY FIT demanding that I
provide HER with my DD-214 (Thumbnail service record) so she can find things
to play with such as my duties and assignments. She's ON THE HUNT for
ANYTHING she might be able to find. Somebody to TRACK DOWN and claim they
had something negative to say about me. She's absolutely MANIC as if her
entire life depends on getting this. Doesn't make much difference, most
likely she'll just start making shit up, and like Moore - CREATING people.
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> >>serial number? What the fukkk do you think you are, the KGB?
>>
>> > You sure do LOVE the three K's, huh?
>>
>> When speaking to the KLAN, use as many K's as possible. Hey, Kunt, did you
>> forget you ONLY post at 5 AM.
>
> Kennie, most people have a life outside of usenet.
>IOW not like you.
Pangborn flat out LIED. I've never claimed I post only, or even
ONLY, at 5:00AM. The closest the drunken liar (that's Kenneth Robert
Pangborn of KRP CONsulting, should anyone not know) can get is a reply
from me to one of LIT's post when I mention on weekdays when school is
in session, I tend to post between 3:00 and 4:00 AM, though I
occasionally post as late as 5:00AM.
School isn't currently in session due to the winter break, so I
was able to post later in the day. Ken was too drunk when he posted
to realize that. Or he was so drunk he couldn't be honest. Only he
can KNOW which is the case.
Kent Wills
wrote:
Why would she be unable? She's not a Christian, but that doesn't
negate one from having a merry Christmas. Not to the sober mind.
"you are reading Moore's SELECTIVE material that is HIGHLY edited."
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn, alcoholic (according to him)
owner/operator of KRP CONsulting and The A-Team claiming in misc.legal
that David Moore can and does edit Google's Usenet archive.
Message-ID: <n9Sfm.1372$nh2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>Moe > If Kennie has nothing to hide, you can use
>Moe > the info in his 214 to help him attack me.
>
>GH> I can use information from HIS discharge papers
>GH> to attack you? Your LOOPY!
>
> As if anyone needed anything more than her INSANE claims, such as her
>moronic claim I got a Article 15 Discharge. See how she dropped that one?
Whereas that isn't the claim she made, but your drunken spin
regarding her claim, there was nothing for her to drop.
>What our grand inquistitor SO DESPERATELY NEEDS is omething else to
>MISREPRESENT. Like her claim that the words "OTHER THAN" appear before the
>words "HONORABLE DISCHARGE" on my DD-256AF. Maureen is the idiot gift that
>just keeps on giving.
That's not the claim she made, outside your drunken inability to
read written English.
>
>KRP > How is that GENERAL McAllister?
>
>GH> Yeah, how would that supposedly work? LOL
>
> Think you'll get an answer on that one?
The users of Gregborn Logic � (That's you and Greg) are the ones
who claimed she could use it to attack you. As such, it befalls you,
or Greg, to prove how it could be done.
Moe has never claimed, directly or via implication that she could
do so (prove she has, if she has).
>
>Moe > He'll show you his 214, won't he Greg?
>
>GH> I think he already did, long ago, but it
>GH> wouldn't be easy to find in old e-mails.
>
> I don't think so Greg. Pretty much shortly after the BULLSHIT from Moore
>went into high gear 10 years ago, I stopped sharing private stuff.Knowing
>what I do of the ambient INSANITY that is abundant on Usenet, my naive offer
>to share such documentation was withdrawn.
Translation: People were able to PROVE the drunken LIES of
Kenneth Robert Pangborn of KRP CONsulting.
>Also given the propensity of SOME
>people to ALTER the materials.
Like plane tickets, for example?
>Such as "Percy Mincer" altering my boarding
>pass to replace my name with HIS and insisting that HE went to Cuba NOT ME
>and that I copied HIS documents.
I've seen no such claim from any such person.
Where are these supposed alterations to be found?
>
> Maureen is offering her EXPERT opinion that my boarding passes to Cuba
>are FAKED.
When, outside of your drunken lies, has Moe made such a claim?
>Photoshopped. Love how she makes wild claims with NO evidence
>other than Quoting DAVID MOORE.
Since she didn't make the claim you assign (prove she did, unless
your admitting that your boozing forces you to lie), your drunken lie
fails.
>
>KRP > WHY? Just because YOU
>KRP > are HYSTERICAL wanting to see it?
>
>GH> Moe is just a stooge.
>
> Maureen isn't smart enough to be a stooge. Perhaps she suffers from
>Factitious Disorder by Proxy? She is just a post menopausal woman suffering
>from a very severe case of HYSTERIA.
Menopause must have hit her very early then.
While possible, it's very unlikely. But by all means, prove your
claim, unless you've been caught in ANOTHER of your many drunken lies.
>She has so many things she desperately
>NEEDS to believe in. Trying to follow her "logic" (a misnomer)
You have proved, many times, that you think women are incapable
of logic. That this view of yours is, being kind, in error doesn't
matter in the least.
>can cause
>insanity itself.
Are you going to claim that is what caused you to be found
legally insane (unless you lied), as apposed to your previous claim of
alcoholism being the cause?
>It is twisted, mean spirited, and almost always illogical.
>That's what makes it funny, her "logic" is "illogical."
You really need to cease the projection, Ken.
>
> Let's warp back to the genesis of this thread. That was MAUREEN'S claim
>that I did NOT serve in the Air Force,
Actually, it was about your LIE that you would make the proof you
claim to posses that David Moore was adopted available once he
admitted from where he got the names. He did so, yet in your
continued PROOF that you are a coward with NO honor, you RAN from your
obligation.
This eventually became what we see now, you DESPERATELY trying to
distract from your inability to be honest and your complete lack of
any sort of honor.
>followed by her backup position that
>my service was "less than Honorable."
A reasonable presumption, given your current behavior.
> I offered by DD-256AF showing an
>"HONORABLE DISCHARGE"
Which does NOTHING to prove how you behaved while in the service.
What did you fear so much that you had to redact parts of the
DD256?
>and she goes into her HISSY FIT demanding that I
>provide HER with my DD-214
She made no demand, outside of your latest PROOF that you only
post while drunk.
>(Thumbnail service record) so she can find things
>to play with such as my duties and assignments.
You already claimed that you were a weapons advisor or, depending
on the lie being told, instructor. And yes, both claims have been
PROVED to be lies, based on Gregborn Logic�.
>She's ON THE HUNT for
>ANYTHING she might be able to find. Somebody to TRACK DOWN and claim they
>had something negative to say about me.
No tracking is needed. No one has anything positive to say about
you. Heck, people who show up from your days on FIDOnet have only
negative comments to make about you.
That should be a clue, Ken. When no one, no one at all, can post
anything nice about you, it means there is nothing nice about you to
post.
I'm well aware that you honestly believe everyone is a part of
the MASSIVE COALITION FORCE (emphasis yours) that is out to get you,
but the truth is that there is no such force. Everyone is posting the
impression they got and get from your behavior.
>She's absolutely MANIC as if her
>entire life depends on getting this. Doesn't make much difference, most
>likely she'll just start making shit up, and like Moore - CREATING people.
Who has David created? Be specific, and prepared to have any and
all lies exposed.
If you would prefer to simply admit you're so drunk you lied,
that is also acceptable. And by Gregborn Logic�, failure to PROVE
your claim will be a tactic admission that it was and is a drunken lie
from you.
womanGoddess
> "womanGoddess" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:fe1f38d0-2ed0-4eaa...@h9g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 23, 6:25 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Moe, Did you try holding your breath and jumping up and down?
>
> MOE> Greg here's an idea. Why don't you ask Kennie to send YOU his
> DD-214?
>
> My, Maureen, you ARE getting desperate!
Greg is supposedly your friend, There is no reason for him NOT to see
your DD-214. Whatsamatter, don't you trust him?
Unless even he can see you lied.
>
> MOE> If Kennie has nothing to hide, you can use the info in his 214 to help
> him attack me.
>
> How is that GENERAL McAllister?
He's your online patsy. If he's going to help defend you in this, he
should have the FACTS to see for himself. Otherwise he'd be relying
upon your word, which has no value as you are a constant liar.
>
> MOE> He'll show you his 214, won't he Greg?
>
> WHY? Just because YOU are HYSTERICAL wanting to see it?
See above..
Don't you trust Greg, Kennie?
womanGoddess
> "Greegor" <greego...@gmail.com> wrote in message
SSDD.
Kennie if the issue is a moot one, why keep bringing it up?
You can lie about me all you want. To me its your usual act, your
usual making nose and a stink o hide something you are guilty of.
The issue is pretty much set. I asked for your DD-214 as definitive
roof of yrru AF service as you offered it in the past. You tried
passing off the 256 as if it was the same as the 214, which you know
it is not. I caught you at your deception and speculated the
possibilities why you tried hiding your rank and discharge condition.
If your discharge with " medals" was as you claimed in the past, you
shouldn't be so worked up about this as you so plainly are.
Liars are desperate to hide their lies.
One of the problems with you is your lack of credibility. You have a
profession that relies upon the trust of your clients to tell them
the truth about you and what you claim you do for them. Your two cum
laude degrees come from a mail order diploma mill, not from a
legitimate university. That is a lie of credibility Kennie. One of
your MANY lies.
I can speculate on what you actually were in your AF service. I can
also figure out that you LIED about what you claimed you did while in
the Air Force.
You don't like that one bit. Good.
womanGoddess
> On Fri, 25 Dec 2009 06:05:10 -0500, "krp" <kr...@tampabay.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >news:9bfc4855-25d5-4ed4...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
>
> >MOE> As I've said before the only way this can be resolved is when you
> >MOE> authorize me or anyone else to see your actual DD-214. If you are
> >MOE> proud of your service record and you haven't lied, there should be no
> >MOE> problem for you allowing the public to see your service record.
>
> > Have a MERRY CHRISTMAS, Maureen. Oh wait, YOU can't, can you?
>
> Why would she be unable? She's not a Christian, but that doesn't
> negate one from having a merry Christmas. Not to the sober mind.
Agreed. Christmas is in our culture a secular holiday.
Oh, did I forget to mention that a lot of the things about the
Christmas holiday come FROM Paganism?
Dec 25th is the Roman day of Sol Invictus.
Yule is Dec 21, the Winter Solstice.
Kissing under the mistletoe comes from the Druid belief about the
plant.
Santa Clause has a lot of correlations with the Norse All-Father
Odin.
Yule logs are from Pagan beliefs.
Anyone, Christian or not, can celebrate Christmas.
I certainly do.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
Know your scum--- http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>
womanGoddess
Heck I still get PMS! I am years away from the menopausal stage.
>
> >She has so many things she desperately
> >NEEDS to believe in. Trying to follow her "logic" (a misnomer)
>
> You have proved, many times, that you think women are incapable
> of logic. That this view of yours is, being kind, in error doesn't
> matter in the least.
The irony is that for the most part I HAVE been rational in my
arguments. While I am human and get annoyed at some people. the actual
IRRATIONAL responses come from Kennie himself.
If me being a woman means I'm irrational, what's HIS excuse?
>
> >can cause
> >insanity itself.
>
> Are you going to claim that is what caused you to be found
> legally insane (unless you lied), as apposed to your previous claim of
> alcoholism being the cause?
>
> >It is twisted, mean spirited, and almost always illogical.
> >That's what makes it funny, her "logic" is "illogical."
>
> You really need to cease the projection, Ken.
Twisted , mean spirited and illogical are Kennie traits.
>
>
>
> > Let's warp back to the genesis of this thread. That was MAUREEN'S claim
> >that I did NOT serve in the Air Force,
>
> Actually, it was about your LIE that you would make the proof you
> claim to posses that David Moore was adopted available once he
> admitted from where he got the names. He did so, yet in your
> continued PROOF that you are a coward with NO honor, you RAN from your
> obligation.
> This eventually became what we see now, you DESPERATELY trying to
> distract from your inability to be honest and your complete lack of
> any sort of honor.
>
> >followed by her backup position that
> >my service was "less than Honorable."
>
> A reasonable presumption, given your current behavior.
Not to mention the BS he claimed he was while he was in the Air
Force, some of which I've exposed as lies.
> Message-ID: <n9Sfm.1372$nh2....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
krp
MOE> Agreed. Christmas is in our culture a secular holiday.
Bzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzztttt!
http://www.history.com/minisite.do?content_type=mini_home&mini_id=1290
"Christmas is both a sacred religious holiday and a worldwide cultural and
commercial phenomenon."
Christmas became a FEDERAL HOLIDAY during the administration of Ulysses S.
Grant enacted by Congress.
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/When_and_how_did_Christmas_become_an_official_government_holiday
"President Ulysses S. Grant declared Christmas a legal holiday in 1870. The
bill to make Christmas a holiday was introduced into the House of
Representatives by Rep. Burton Chauncey Cook (Illinois). It was approved and
passed to the Senate on June 24, 1870. When both houses had agreed on the
wording (below) it was passed on to President Grant, who signed it on June
28, 1870. Here is the wording of that act of Congress: An Act making the
first Day of January, the twenty-fifth Day of December, the fourth Day of
July, and Thanksgiving Day, Holidays, within the District of Columbia. Be it
enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of
America in Congress assembled, That the following days, to wit: The first
day of January, commonly called New Year's day, the fourth day of July, the
twenty-fifth day of December, commonly called Christmas Day, and any day
appointed or recommended by the President of the United States as a day of
public fast or thanksgiving, shall be holidays within the District of
Columbia, and shall, for all purposes of presenting for payment or
acceptance of the maturity and protest, and giving notice of the dishonor of
bills of exchange, bank checks and promissory notes or other negotiable or
commercial paper, be treated and considered as is the first day of the week,
commonly called Sunday, and all notes, drafts, checks, or other commercial
or negotiable paper falling due or maturing on either of said holidays shall
be deemed as having matured on the day previous. APPROVED, June 28, 1870 by
President Ulysses S. Grant."
So much for your CLAIMS, Maureen!
krp
> Who has David created? Be specific, and prepared to have any and
> all lies exposed.
Start with Will Rainey (Moore created from William Rainey Harper College
near his former residence) and we can go on to ATTORNEY KOSIVLOTISKY who
likewise does NOT exist. Supposedly a lawyer practicing in Baltimore,
Maryland.
That's just a couple off the top of my Head Maureen.
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[Snips for brevity]
>> >Factitious Disorder by Proxy? She is just a post menopausal woman suffering
>> >from a very severe case of HYSTERIA.
>>
>> Menopause must have hit her very early then.
>> While possible, it's very unlikely. But by all means, prove your
>> claim, unless you've been caught in ANOTHER of your many drunken lies.
>
> Heck I still get PMS! I am years away from the menopausal stage.
>
I presumed as much. Of course, I don't have access to
information about your menstrual cycle, so I had to admit it was
*possible* for you to be post-menopausal. Very unlikely, but still
*possible*.
>>
>> >She has so many things she desperately
>> >NEEDS to believe in. Trying to follow her "logic" (a misnomer)
>>
>> You have proved, many times, that you think women are incapable
>> of logic. That this view of yours is, being kind, in error doesn't
>> matter in the least.
>
> The irony is that for the most part I HAVE been rational in my
>arguments. While I am human and get annoyed at some people. the actual
>IRRATIONAL responses come from Kennie himself.
>
> If me being a woman means I'm irrational, what's HIS excuse?
>
May be he wishes he was a woman? It's as good a guess as any at
this point.
>>
>> >can cause
>> >insanity itself.
>>
>> Are you going to claim that is what caused you to be found
>> legally insane (unless you lied), as apposed to your previous claim of
>> alcoholism being the cause?
>>
>> >It is twisted, mean spirited, and almost always illogical.
>> >That's what makes it funny, her "logic" is "illogical."
>>
>> You really need to cease the projection, Ken.
>
> Twisted , mean spirited and illogical are Kennie traits.
>
And he projects those traits onto others.
[...]
>>
>> >followed by her backup position that
>> >my service was "less than Honorable."
>>
>> A reasonable presumption, given your current behavior.
>
> Not to mention the BS he claimed he was while he was in the Air
>Force, some of which I've exposed as lies.
Like how we was a weapons instructor... No wait, he was a weapons
advisor. Now, it was an instructor.
If he would just be honest, he wouldn't need to worry about
remembering what lies he's told.
"Maybe he's like me to attach some kiddie porn to aid his fantasies"
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn, alcoholic (according to him)
owner/operator of KRP CONsulting and The A-Team, expressing his
fondness for child porn in Message-ID: <RECUi.494$Q%3.238@trnddc04>
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"womanGoddess" <fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:6933c889-cc1f-4270...@e27g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>
>> Who has David created? Be specific, and prepared to have any and
>> all lies exposed.
>
>
> Start with Will Rainey (Moore created from William Rainey Harper College
>near his former residence)
Anyone with access to any on-line map can verify your LIE about
David living near WRH College. Heck, he's nearly 300 miles away. Even
if the David Moore who does live in Calumet City once lived in
Bolingbrook (that's where you LIE and claim is the place near WRH
College, right?), that doesn't prove the Will Rainey who exposed your
lies was/is fake.
>and we can go on to ATTORNEY KOSIVLOTISKY who
>likewise does NOT exist. Supposedly a lawyer practicing in Baltimore,
>Maryland.
No one, except you, claims the man lives, or lived, anywhere in
Maryland.
Please show were the guy claims any connection to Maryland:
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/rjk.html
If you want the original post as archived on Google (I know, you
believe David can and does edit the posts on Google) visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.dads-rights.unmoderated/msg/9233c74835338fa6
>
> That's just a couple off the top of my Head Maureen.
And both claims you make have been shown to be nothing more than
lies from you.
"you are reading Moore's SELECTIVE material that is HIGHLY edited."
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn, insane alcoholic (according to
him) owner/operator of KRP CONsulting and The A-Team claiming in
misc.legal that David Moore can and does edit Google's Usenet archive.
Message-ID: <n9Sfm.1372$nh2...@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>
Kent Wills
<fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
[...]
>> > Have a MERRY CHRISTMAS, Maureen. Oh wait, YOU can't, can you?
>>
>> Why would she be unable? She's not a Christian, but that doesn't
>> negate one from having a merry Christmas. Not to the sober mind.
>
> Agreed. Christmas is in our culture a secular holiday.
It's been said, and accurately so, Christ has little to do with
Christmas beyond the name.
>
> Oh, did I forget to mention that a lot of the things about the
>Christmas holiday come FROM Paganism?
>
> Dec 25th is the Roman day of Sol Invictus.
>Yule is Dec 21, the Winter Solstice.
> Kissing under the mistletoe comes from the Druid belief about the
>plant.
> Santa Clause has a lot of correlations with the Norse All-Father
>Odin.
He is based on a real man, though. Nicholas of Myra is said to
have inherited a large sum of money when his parents died. He kept
very little of it for himself, opting to throw bags of gold through
the windows of the needy during the night.
>Yule logs are from Pagan beliefs.
This is also, roughly, the time of Saturnalia. I could look it up
to know the exact dates for the celebration, but that's more work than
I want to invest :)
>
> Anyone, Christian or not, can celebrate Christmas.
>
> I certainly do.
I recall John Hattan, a very open atheist, commenting about
exchanging gifts with family and friends. I think he referred to it as
"Atheist Christmas." He may have called it an "Atheist Gift
Exchange." It's been many years, so the EXACT terminology is lost to
me, and I'm too lazy too look it up.
Regardless, he always made it seem as if he enjoyed Christmas.
I have a very good friend named Chris. He and his wife are
Muslim. They appear to have a very merry Christmas, even if they don't
believe Jesus is the Son of God.
One of the best friends I ever had, until he passed away, was a
Jewish Rabbi. Rabbi Bill, occasionally I would call him Neighbor
Bill, though we hadn't been neighbors for many, many years, would
often hand Christmas gifts to give to non-Jewish customers who visited
The Nosh (the Jewish deli he owned until his death).
I don't expect Ken to ever explain why he thinks you couldn't
have a merry Christmas. He will likely RUN from the matter.
Especially since you and I have shown how anyone, no matter their
religious views, can have a merry Christmas.
"Sometimes Greg is sloppy with things like that. I would agree the
significance of the difference may be just a wee bit over his head"
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn, alcoholic (according to him)
owner/operator of KRP CONsulting and The A-Team commenting on his ONLY
on-line friend, Gregory Scott Hanson.
krp
>>> Who has David created? Be specific, and prepared to have any and
>>> all lies exposed.
>>
>>
>> Start with Will Rainey (Moore created from William Rainey Harper
>> College
>>near his former residence)
>
> Anyone with access to any on-line map can verify your LIE about
> David living near WRH College. Heck, he's nearly 300 miles away. Even
> if the David Moore who does live in Calumet City once lived in
> Bolingbrook (that's where you LIE and claim is the place near WRH
> College, right?), that doesn't prove the Will Rainey who exposed your
> lies was/is fake.
Too bad, Wills when he INVENTED Will Rainey our Davey was living in
Bolingbrook. Just a few miles down the road from the college. TRY AGAIN!
>>and we can go on to ATTORNEY KOSIVLOTISKY who
>>likewise does NOT exist. Supposedly a lawyer practicing in Baltimore,
>>Maryland.
> No one, except you, claims the man lives, or lived, anywhere in
> Maryland.
> Please show were the guy claims any connection to Maryland:
Okay WHERE is he then? NONE of the 50 states nor the American BAR
association show him as an attorney ANYWHERE in the United States EVER!
Want to try another LIE, yolu simple minded dipshit?
> If you want the original post as archived on Google (I know, you
> believe David can and does edit the posts on Google) visit:
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.dads-rights.unmoderated/msg/9233c74835338fa6
Family Law Support Services "BALTIMORE MAYLAND." AN organization that
never REALLY existed. It was the invention of Racmeil Tobesman who had a war
on with the legitimate Father's Rights Group in Maryland. He turned on me
when I would not support his war with Charles Biddison there. The FACT is
that the attorney NEVER EXISTED and Moore KNEW IT and pushed it anyhow.
freedom
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message=20
>news:0l5dj5pg18cdi1e5q...@4ax.com...
>
>>>> Who has David created? Be specific, and prepared to have any and
>>>> all lies exposed.
>>>
>>>
>>> College
>>>near his former residence)
>>
>> Anyone with access to any on-line map can verify your LIE about
>> David living near WRH College. Heck, he's nearly 300 miles away. Even
>> if the David Moore who does live in Calumet City once lived in
>> Bolingbrook (that's where you LIE and claim is the place near WRH
>> College, right?), that doesn't prove the Will Rainey who exposed your
>> lies was/is fake.
>
>Bolingbrook. Just a few miles down the road from the college. TRY AGAIN!
No, I wasn't.
It was also proven that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people
bearing the name "William Rainey" in the United States.
Then there's the fact that you conversed with, and about, Mr. Rainey here
on usenet, and then began making up stories about a college only after
Rainey told you where to stick your fraudulent services.
>
>>>and we can go on to ATTORNEY KOSIVLOTISKY who
>>>likewise does NOT exist. Supposedly a lawyer practicing in Baltimore,
>>>Maryland.
>
>> No one, except you, claims the man lives, or lived, anywhere in=20
>> Maryland.
>> Please show were the guy claims any connection to Maryland:
>
> Okay WHERE is he then? NONE of the 50 states nor the American BAR=20
>association show him as an attorney ANYWHERE in the United States EVER!=20
>Want to try another LIE, yolu simple minded dipshit?
>
>> If you want the original post as archived on Google (I know, you
>> believe David can and does edit the posts on Google) visit:
>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.dads-rights.unmoderated/msg/9233c7483=
>> 5338fa6
>
> Family Law Support Services "BALTIMORE MAYLAND." AN organization that=20
>never REALLY existed. It was the invention of Racmeil Tobesman who had a w=
ar=20
>on with the legitimate Father's Rights Group in Maryland. He turned on me=20
>when I would not support his war with Charles Biddison there. The FACT is=20
>that the attorney NEVER EXISTED and Moore KNEW IT and pushed it anyhow.
I didn't "push" anything. I stated that a particular post appeared on
usenet.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
The truth about Kenneth Pangborn of KRP Consulting, 3648 Cockatoo Drive,
New Port Richey, Florida: neighbor of James Dziewinski, Michael P
Fiorentino, Esther Z Nikkila, Christopher W Kelly, Susan A Kelly, Thomas
Kelly, Kelly A Mcleod
"Carol Ann you don't KNOW shit! Youy are LYING! ...... Jesus Christ you are=
one DESPICABLE CUNT!!!! ....Bitch you are GUTTER SLIME!"
--Kenneth Pangborn, from a usenet argument with a female debator,
highlighting his typical views on women
"Rumors about ken are true, he is a bad man. That is why both my mother and=
I ran out of there as fast as we could back in the late summer of 2002. He
ruined my life and my moms life....His business is a scam, as he is in the
rest of his life. He enjoys child pornography and was investigated for that=
as well....he'll call my mom 20 times a day until she answers...[Ken's
sister-in-law Rebecca Reilly] 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 daughter Megan
"Blood, breath or urine?"
--question to Ken Pangborn from a Florida police officer in November 2008,
during a traffic stop from which Pangborn was subsequently charged with
DUI**
"...beating [some kids] into a bloody pulp is the ONLY thing=20
that would get through to them."=20
--Ken Pangborn on child rearing
"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
** - this conclusion was reached via applying Ken and Greg's logic
Keywords: false allegations,sexual abuse,marital rape, date rape, sexual
harassment,child abuse,domestic violence,rape allegations,false allegations=
of child abuse,false rape allegations,false abuse accusations,false
accusations,recovered memories,child sexual abuse,abuse child,sexual
assault,child molestation,reactive attachment disorder,penile
plethysmograph,polygraph,attorneys,divorce,visitation,pedophiles, thinking
about hiring ken pangborn,florida trial consulting,florida false
allegations,child abuse,brianna bragg
More-keywords: KRP CONSULTING. False allegations of child abuse, false
abuse accusations, false domestic violence allegations help, false rape
allegations, abuse child, sexual abuse, child sexual abuse, false
allegations, false accusations, recovered memories, sexual assault, child
molestation, child sexual abuse, reactive attachment disorder, penile
plethysmograph, polygraph, trial consulting, jury consulting, jury
selection, jury voire dire, wrongful allegations, false child sexual abuse
allegations. Wrongful child sexual abuse allegations. Domestic Violence.
Rape. Marital rape. Date Rape. Confidence Rape.
Yet-more-keywords: ken pangborn,kenneth pangborn,barbara pangborn,barbara
sanciprian,palm harbor,tampa,attorneys,florida lawyers,florida
attorneys,tampa lawyers,tampa attorneys,trial consultant,trial
consulting,dui,domestic violence,vawa,abuse,3648 cockatoo,new port
richey,ernesto sanciprian,ernesto miguel blanco sanciprian,blanco
sanciprian,bryce carter,holguin,julio aguilar,yudith bacallao,raimundo
cabrera,ana hernandez chi,lixandro cordero,leandis diaz,al faisbuker,wendy
gil,armando capo ramos,george riveron,reinaldo rodriguez,lexis ross,liana
yisell alvarez silveira,madelyn tamayo,manuel toledo,thais valdes
Extra-keywords: Julito Sainz,craig clawson,lia yisell, Ahmed
Gomez,Alejandro Querejeta Barcel=F3,Alina Gil,Ana Hern=E1ndez Chi,Aniely
Fernandez Torres,Anna Ruetten,Ariella Ochoa,Armando Gomez Pe=F1a,Camilo
Carbonell,Camilo Castro,Carlos Dorta,Carlos Manuel Gonzalez
Iglesias,Cathelijne Janssen,Chris Castellan,Cody Kuchirka,Di Addario
Sabrina,Diana Rosa,Elizabeth Perez Tamayo,Elsa M Pena,Elsa Mora,Eric Blanco=
Sancipri=E1n,Ernesto Ferriol,Frans Stamm'ler,George Riveron,Gigi
Tsang,Gioconda Carralero Dominicis,Glexis Novoa,Hayd=E9e Mar=EDa
Mart=EDnez,Jimini Hignett,Joan Hatten,Johan Martinez,Jorge Ferret
Vincench,Jorge Luis,Jose M. Cimarro,Jos=E9 Miguel Ricardo Tamayo,Juan Carlo=
s
P=E9rez Berb=E9n,Juan E. Mauriz-Gomez,Julio Cesar Guerrero,Julio Cesar
Rodriguez Aguilar,Julio Hernandez,Julio Quevedo,Katiuska Saavedra,Leandis
Diaz,Leticia Gallego Cruz,Leyda Rodriguez Ag=FCero,Lixandro Cordero,Lorver
Lores de Verdecia,Lourdes Castro Fuentes,Lourdes Gonzalez Herrero,Luis
Betancourt,Luis Castillo,Madelyn Tamayo,Magalys Reyes,Manuel Toledo,Marie
Louise Pepin,Max Schrems,Michael H. Miranda,Nani Garcia,Nestor Arenas,Nor
Gutiez,Norge Pazo Sanciprian,Oscar Fuentes Labrada,Osiris Aviles,Pupi
Pupito,Rafael Paneca Cano,Raimundo Cabrera,Reinaldo Rodriguez,Ricardo
Ponce,Ricardo Silveira Miro,Roger Castillejo,Ronald Guill=E9n=20
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:0l5dj5pg18cdi1e5q...@4ax.com...
>
>>>> Who has David created? Be specific, and prepared to have any and
>>>> all lies exposed.
>>>
>>>
>>> Start with Will Rainey (Moore created from William Rainey Harper
>>> College
>>>near his former residence)
>>
>> Anyone with access to any on-line map can verify your LIE about
>> David living near WRH College. Heck, he's nearly 300 miles away. Even
>> if the David Moore who does live in Calumet City once lived in
>> Bolingbrook (that's where you LIE and claim is the place near WRH
>> College, right?), that doesn't prove the Will Rainey who exposed your
>> lies was/is fake.
>
> Too bad, Wills when he INVENTED Will Rainey our Davey was living in
>Bolingbrook. Just a few miles down the road from the college. TRY AGAIN!
>
As I PROVED months ago, with a link to Google maps, the college
is about 30 miles away from Bolingbrook.
Even if the David Moore you falsely claim to be the one we know
did live in Bolingbrook, there is NOTHING to support your claim that
he was playing the part of the man who exposed many of your lies.
>>>and we can go on to ATTORNEY KOSIVLOTISKY who
>>>likewise does NOT exist. Supposedly a lawyer practicing in Baltimore,
>>>Maryland.
>
>> No one, except you, claims the man lives, or lived, anywhere in
>> Maryland.
>> Please show were the guy claims any connection to Maryland:
>>
>>http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/rjk.html
>
> Okay WHERE is he then?
I don't know.
>NONE of the 50 states nor the American BAR
>association show him as an attorney ANYWHERE in the United States EVER!
>Want to try another LIE, yolu simple minded dipshit?
You're the one who claims he's in Maryland, yet claim you were
lying.
Do you even think before you click on send?
>
>> If you want the original post as archived on Google (I know, you
>> believe David can and does edit the posts on Google) visit:
>
>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.dads-rights.unmoderated/msg/9233c74835338fa6
>
> Family Law Support Services "BALTIMORE MAYLAND."
Nothing about Baltimore, MD is mentioned.
>AN organization that
>never REALLY existed. It was the invention of Racmeil Tobesman who had a war
>on with the legitimate Father's Rights Group in Maryland. He turned on me
>when I would not support his war with Charles Biddison there. The FACT is
>that the attorney NEVER EXISTED and Moore KNEW IT and pushed it anyhow.
As the link to the Kenneth Robert Pangborn TRUTH site shows,
Moore makes no claims. He offers a direct copy and past of the
article on Google.
Is there a SPECIFIC reason you're lying about this?
"CPS cases are legal matters. Offering advice IS practicing law
without a license."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn admitting he practices law without a
license in misc.legal
krp
"freedom" <about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote in message
news:65f9f27802a6e805...@msgid.frell.theremailer.net...
>>>>> Who has David created? Be specific, and prepared to have any and
>>>>> all lies exposed.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Start with Will Rainey (Moore created from William Rainey Harper=20
>>>> College
>>>>near his former residence)
>>>
>>> Anyone with access to any on-line map can verify your LIE about
>>> David living near WRH College. Heck, he's nearly 300 miles away. Even
>>> if the David Moore who does live in Calumet City once lived in
>>> Bolingbrook (that's where you LIE and claim is the place near WRH
>>> College, right?), that doesn't prove the Will Rainey who exposed your
>>> lies was/is fake.
>> Too bad, Wills when he INVENTED Will Rainey our Davey was living in
>>Bolingbrook. Just a few miles down the road from the college. TRY AGAIN!
> No, I wasn't.
Moore - early onset senility? Did you forget the ADDRESS you used when
you first registered your hate site with A-Ne "FREEDUMB?" Forget so soon?
228 N. Pinecrest, Bolingbrook, Illinois 60440. Or was that the "OTHER" David
Moore?
> It was also proven that there are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of people
> bearing the name "William Rainey" in the United States.
<yawn> But isn't it ODD, I mean REALLY REALLY REALLOY ODD, that Will Rainey
showed up AFTER you started your attack site and strange that WRH college
was just a few miles from your house at the time.
> Then there's the fact that you conversed with, and about, Mr. Rainey here
> on usenet, and then began making up stories about a college only after
> Rainey told you where to stick your fraudulent services.
BULLSHIT!
>>>>and we can go on to ATTORNEY KOSIVLOTISKY who
>>>>likewise does NOT exist. Supposedly a lawyer practicing in Baltimore,
>>>>Maryland.
>>
>>> No one, except you, claims the man lives, or lived, anywhere in=20
>>> Maryland.
>>> Please show were the guy claims any connection to Maryland:
>>
>> Okay WHERE is he then? NONE of the 50 states nor the American BAR=20
>>association show him as an attorney ANYWHERE in the United States EVER!=20
>>Want to try another LIE, yolu simple minded dipshit?
>>
>>> If you want the original post as archived on Google (I know, you
>>> believe David can and does edit the posts on Google) visit:
>>
>>> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.dads-rights.unmoderated/msg/9233c7483=
>
>>> 5338fa6
>>
>> Family Law Support Services "BALTIMORE MAYLAND." AN organization that
>>never REALLY existed. It was the invention of Racmeil Tobesman who had a
>>war
>>on with the legitimate Father's Rights Group in Maryland. He turned on me
>>when I would not support his war with Charles Biddison there. The FACT is
>>that the attorney NEVER EXISTED and Moore KNEW IT and pushed it anyhow.
> I didn't "push" anything. I stated that a particular post appeared on
> usenet.
Moore you have KNOWN that there is NO SUCH PERSON from the start yet
yopu list the post prominently on your website KNOWING it is BULLSHIT!
krp
>> Too bad, Wills when he INVENTED Will Rainey our Davey was living in
>>Bolingbrook. Just a few miles down the road from the college. TRY AGAIN!
> As I PROVED months ago, with a link to Google maps, the college
> is about 30 miles away from Bolingbrook.
More like 20 miles. Straight up Highway 53. All of which misses the
point that the College rtuns ADS on every TV station in the Chicago area,
not to mention that it is a HIGHLY respected school and is frequeuntly
mentioned on the news in Chicago. I don't know what you THINK your point
IS, weenie, but if you live in the western b urbs of Chicago you KNOW WRH
College. Nice try, however, maybe a D+ for effort.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:tbkfj59nt6kniuhg6...@4ax.com...
>
>>> Too bad, Wills when he INVENTED Will Rainey our Davey was living in
>>>Bolingbrook. Just a few miles down the road from the college. TRY AGAIN!
>
>> As I PROVED months ago, with a link to Google maps, the college
>> is about 30 miles away from Bolingbrook.
>
> More like 20 miles.
Let's compromise and say 25.
Still not a few miles down the road as you dishonestly claim.
>Straight up Highway 53. All of which misses the
>point that the College rtuns ADS on every TV station in the Chicago area,
How would you know? Did you move recently?
Even if the college does so now, what would current adds have to
do with something that occurred years ago?
>not to mention that it is a HIGHLY respected school and is frequeuntly
>mentioned on the news in Chicago.
Again, even if true, how does current reporting factor into the
past actions of someone exposing you for the liar and fraud you were?
>I don't know what you THINK your point
>IS, weenie, but if you live in the western b urbs of Chicago you KNOW WRH
>College. Nice try, however, maybe a D+ for effort.
>
I had heard of it, along with others. The College of DuPage
comes to mind.
You claimed the school was a few miles down the road from
Bolingbrook. It is, in fact, MANY miles to the north.
Another of your MANY drunken pathological lies was exposed. If
something so easy to check was PROVED a lie, then it's reasonable to
presume your claim about Mr. Rainey was also a lie. Certainly until
such time as you can PROVE your claim.
"Miranda was a STUPID WASTE OF TIME AND DID NOTHING!"
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn of KRP Consulting and The A-Team.
krp
>>>> Too bad, Wills when he INVENTED Will Rainey our Davey was living in
>>>>Bolingbrook. Just a few miles down the road from the college. TRY AGAIN!
>>
>>> As I PROVED months ago, with a link to Google maps, the college
>>> is about 30 miles away from Bolingbrook.
>>
>> More like 20 miles.
> Let's compromise and say 25.
> Still not a few miles down the road as you dishonestly claim.
So - in YOUR Polack view 25 miles is s HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE distance?
>>Straight up Highway 53. All of which misses the
>>point that the College rtuns ADS on every TV station in the Chicago area,
> How would you know? Did you move recently?
Look DIPSHIT, I was born in Chicago. I travel there frequently. I am
also familiar with some folks on the faculty there - YOU FUKKKKKING MORON!
> Even if the college does so now, what would current adds have to
> do with something that occurred years ago?
They didn't build the school LAST WEEK, Polack!
>>not to mention that it is a HIGHLY respected school and is frequeuntly
>>mentioned on the news in Chicago.
> Again, even if true, how does current reporting factor into the
> past actions of someone exposing you for the liar and fraud you were?
>>I don't know what you THINK your point
>>IS, weenie, but if you live in the western b urbs of Chicago you KNOW WRH
>>College. Nice try, however, maybe a D+ for effort.
> I had heard of it, along with others. The College of DuPage comes to
> mind.
> You claimed the school was a few miles down the road from
> Bolingbrook. It is, in fact, MANY miles to the north.
20 miles is "MANY" in the Polack measuring system ? I suppose in YOUR
rfeasoning it is FATHER to go from Bolingbrook to Palatine than it is from
the Earth to Neptune! And you WONDER why I call you a "Stupid Polack." 20
miles is almost "walking distance." Or as Buggs Bunny would say about you;
"What a maroon!"
Greegor
to create a sock identity, what is the difference
whether it was across the street or 25 miles away?
It's still in what was Davey's local media coverage area.
Dan borrowed "Kimmel" from late night TV but
that is a nationally broadcast show.
Kent Wills
wrote:
>
>"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>news:0stgj51d3f07r51q4...@4ax.com...
>
>>>>> Too bad, Wills when he INVENTED Will Rainey our Davey was living in
>>>>>Bolingbrook. Just a few miles down the road from the college. TRY AGAIN!
>>>
>>>> As I PROVED months ago, with a link to Google maps, the college
>>>> is about 30 miles away from Bolingbrook.
>>>
>>> More like 20 miles.
>
>> Let's compromise and say 25.
>> Still not a few miles down the road as you dishonestly claim.
>
> So - in YOUR Polack view 25 miles is s HUGE HUGE HUGE HUGE distance?
It's not "Just a few miles down the road..." as you claim.
>
>>>Straight up Highway 53. All of which misses the
>>>point that the College rtuns ADS on every TV station in the Chicago area,
>
>> How would you know? Did you move recently?
>
> Look DIPSHIT, I was born in Chicago. I travel there frequently. I am
>also familiar with some folks on the faculty there - YOU FUKKKKKING MORON!
Prove you know anyone on the faculty to the degree you present,
unless you would rather admit another of your drunken lies has been
exposed.
>
>> Even if the college does so now, what would current adds have to
>> do with something that occurred years ago?
>
> They didn't build the school LAST WEEK, Polack!
Avoidance noted. Now that you've played the avoidance game,
please answer the question.
>
>>>not to mention that it is a HIGHLY respected school and is frequeuntly
>>>mentioned on the news in Chicago.
>
>> Again, even if true, how does current reporting factor into the
>> past actions of someone exposing you for the liar and fraud you were?
>
>>>I don't know what you THINK your point
>>>IS, weenie, but if you live in the western b urbs of Chicago you KNOW WRH
>>>College. Nice try, however, maybe a D+ for effort.
>
>> I had heard of it, along with others. The College of DuPage comes to
>> mind.
>> You claimed the school was a few miles down the road from
>> Bolingbrook. It is, in fact, MANY miles to the north.
>
> 20 miles is "MANY" in the Polack measuring system ?
In matters of distance it's not "Just a few miles down the
road..." as you drunkenly DEMAND.
>I suppose in YOUR
>rfeasoning it is FATHER to go from Bolingbrook to Palatine than it is from
>the Earth to Neptune!
Aside from proving you only post while drunk, what was that
sentence supposed to do?
>And you WONDER why I call you a "Stupid Polack." 20
That you're a bigot is accepted by, it appears, everyone.
If anyone is still in question regarding this simple truth, they
may visit the Kenneth Robert Pangborn TRUTH site at
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
>miles is almost "walking distance."
If only you could walk more than a few steps.
>Or as Buggs Bunny would say about you;
>"What a maroon!"
>
How low is your self esteem? If I, a person who consistently
PROVES himself to be your superior in every way that matters, and many
that don't, am a maroon, how low do you see yourself?
Serious question.
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>Kent, When Davey used the name of a local college
>to create a sock identity, what is the difference
>whether it was across the street or 25 miles away?
Your question presumes he did such a thing. The matter has yet
to be proved.
>
>It's still in what was Davey's local media coverage area.
As is anyplace in the world. I occasionally watch the news from
Tokyo. Does this mean anyone who posts with a Japanese nym must be
me? You will need to claim so, of course.
>
>Dan borrowed "Kimmel" from late night TV but
>that is a nationally broadcast show.
It was proved, long ago, that Jim was a real person. That your
stalking of the man only served to PROVE you the failure you are will
not alter this truth.
Now be a good little monkey and HIDE from the truth.
A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott "Piggly
Wiggly" Hanson (either directly or through the same standards he
DEMANDS be held to others):
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, by
attacking my first wife (deceased).
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child abuser:
"Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child
abuser
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
triumphantly.
--a true story
As of Sunday, Nov. 29, 2009:
Financials
Title: STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREG SCOTT
Case: 06571 AGCR015216 (LINN)
Citation Number:
Summary Orig Paid Due
COSTS 9200.00 850.00 8350.00
FINE 500.00 500.00 0.00
SURCHARGE 150.00 150.00 0.00
RESTITUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00
OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00
$9850.00 $1500.00 $8350.00
Yes, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson still owes over
$8000.00 related to his convictions for BEATING his ex-wife.
"I am now a "founded" child abuser for making a
7 year old take a fast cold shower."
-- Gregory Scot "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson bragging in MID
<cu6H6.14493$3c6.3...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com>
In Message-ID:
<c7be6a38-8d1d-4c0a...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson admitted that by his standards,
he RAPED his ex-wife. The same ex-wife he was twice convicted for
BEATING.
In Message-ID:
<8db2eada-0546-4c1a...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson admits that his use and abuse of
illegal drugs forced him to LIE about the existence of certain
photographs.
krp
No answer to the above sputum is warranted.
Kent Wills
wrote:
I accept your admission, by Gregborn Logic� standards, that every
claim I presented is 100% accurate.
"(CONTEXT REMOVED AS TO THE BELOW CLAIM)"
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn, alcoholic (according to him)
owner/operator of KRP CONsulting and The A-Team accidentally admitting
he alters the context of posts when he replies.
MID FyUom.1363$Jd7....@nwrddc02.gnilink.net
krp
> claim I presented is 100% accurate.
>
Keep telling yourself that, Polack.
Greegor
Post your critique!
Tell us how good this logic was!
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 31 / 04-0202
Filed May 6, 2005
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
KENT BRADLEY WILLS,
Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk
County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.
Defendant appeals claiming ineffective
assistance of counsel. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender,
and Tricia Johnston, Assistant State
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin
Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, John P.
Sarcone, County Attorney, and John Judisch,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
WIGGINS, Justice.
Kent Wills appeals his conviction for
second-degree burglary contending that
an attached garage is a separate occupied
structure from that of the living quarters
of the residence. In this appeal, we must
determine whether trial counsel was
ineffective for (1) failing to move for
judgment of acquittal on the basis there
was insufficient evidence to convict Wills
of second-degree burglary when he entered
an attached garage of a residence when no
persons were present in the garage, but
when persons were present in the living
quarters; and (2) failing to object to a
jury instruction based on this same
argument. Because we find there was no
legal basis for the motion for judgment
of acquittal or the objection to the jury
instruction, Wills' trial counsel was not
ineffective. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Around 1 a.m., an Ankeny resident called
the local police to report that a car
alarm sounded in the resident's
neighborhood. The city dispatched a police
officer to the location. Observing nothing
unusual, the officer left the area, only
to be stopped a couple of blocks later
by a person who informed the officer he
had witnessed someone running from the
area of the car alarm. As the officer
started driving back to the area of the
car alarm, he noticed a person walking
on the sidewalk. The officer asked the
person, a minor, if he had noticed anybody
running from the area. The minor answered
that he had not. While the officer and
another officer were speaking to the minor,
another resident of the neighborhood
arrived in her car and informed the
officers that she had observed two people,
one of whom was heavy set with a blinking
light on his back pocket, walking in the
area of her neighbor's residence. She
observed the heavier-set individual, later
identified as Wills, enter her neighbor's
attached garage through an unlocked service
door. She further observed a smaller
individual standing by a van parked in
the neighbor's driveway.
The officers eventually let the minor leave
even though they found a large amount of
coins, a flashlight, and an electronic
pocket organizer in his pockets. After
releasing the minor, the police officers
drove to the residence where the neighbor
observed the two suspicious people and
woke the owner. The owner, his wife,
and two daughters were in the residence
sleeping at the time. After a search
of his vehicles, the owner discovered
change and an electronic pocket organizer
were missing from the vehicles. The
owner's daughter reported a diamond ring
and some change were missing from her
vehicle. The officers then contacted
the minor's parents, who informed the
officers the minor was with Wills. After
the officers questioned the minor again,
he admitted his involvement in the theft
and implicated Wills in the burglary.
Although Wills denied involvement in the
burglary, the officers arrested him.
The State filed a trial information
charging Wills with second-degree
burglary. The State later amended the
information to include two additional
charges of burglary in the third degree
and using a juvenile to commit an
indictable offense.
The jury returned a verdict finding Wills
guilty of the crimes of burglary in the
second degree, burglary in the third
degree, and using a juvenile to commit
an indictable offense. Wills appeals his
conviction for second-degree burglary
claiming ineffective assistance of
counsel.
II. Scope of Review.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
are derived from the Sixth Amendment of the
United States Constitution. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-86, 104 S.
Ct. 2052, 2063-64, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 691-93
(1984). Our review for a claim involving
violations of the Constitution is de novo.
State v. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d 95, 100
(Iowa 2004). We normally preserve
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
for postconviction relief actions. State
v. Carter, 602 N.W. 2d 818, 820 (Iowa 1999).
However, we will address such claims on
direct appeal when the record is sufficient
to permit a ruling. State v. Artzer,
609 N.W.2d 526, 531 (Iowa 2000). The
appellate record in the present case is
sufficient to allow us to address Wills'
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
on direct appeal.
In order for a defendant to succeed on a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
the defendant must prove: (1) counsel
failed to perform an essential duty and
(2) prejudice resulted. Id. Prejudice
results when "there is a reasonable
probability that, but for the counsel's
unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different."
State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 378
(Iowa 1998) (quoting Strickland, 466
U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068,
80 L. Ed. 2d at 698). Wills' arguments
also raise issues of statutory
interpretation, which we review for
correction of errors at law. State v.
Wolford Corp., 689 N.W.2d 471, 473 (Iowa 2004).
III. Analysis.
To find Wills guilty of burglary in the
second degree, the State had to prove
Wills perpetrated a burglary "in or
upon an occupied structure in which one
or more persons are present . . . ." Iowa
Code § 713.5(2) (2003) (emphasis added).
In this appeal, Wills first contends his
trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to move for a judgment of acquittal on
the basis there was insufficient evidence
to support a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage, there were persons
present in or upon the occupied structure.
Wills concedes the garage was an occupied
structure, but argues the living quarters
and the attached garage are separate and
independent occupied structures; therefore,
the jury could not have found there were
people present in the attached garage
at the time of the burglary.
The Code defines an "occupied structure" as:
[A]ny building, structure, appurtenances
to buildings and structures, land, water
or air vehicle, or similar place adapted
for overnight accommodation of persons,
or occupied by persons for the purpose of
carrying on business or other activity
therein, or for the storage or safekeeping
of anything of value. Such a structure
is an "occupied structure" whether or not
a person is actually present.
Id. § 702.12.
Wills relies on State v. Smothers, 590
N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 1999), to argue the
garage and the living quarters are separate
and independent occupied structures. In
Smothers, two separate and distinct
businesses connected by interior fire doors
were operated in the same structure.
590 N.W.2d at 723. We held the defendant
committed two burglaries by entering each
business because "[t]he facility's
construction history and physical make-up
demonstrate that the portions are
independent working units which constitute
'[a] combination of materials to form a
construction for occupancy [or] use.'" Id.
Smothers is not at odds with the present
case because the living quarters and the
garage are not separate or independent
units of the residence.
Our review of the record reveals the garage
in question was a three-car attached garage
separated from the living quarters by a
door. The same roof covered the garage as
the rest of the residence. The living
quarters surrounded the garage on two sides.
It was structurally no different from any
other room in the residence.
The garage was a functional part of the
residence. On the night of the incident,
the door was unlocked. The owner of the
residence used two stalls in the garage to
park the family vehicles. The owner used
the third stall for his motorcycle. As
such, the garage and the living quarters
are a single "structure" or "building"
functioning as an integral part of the
family residence. Thus, the residence
including the garage is a single
"occupied structure" under section 702.12.
See, e.g., People v. Ingram, 48 Cal. Rptr.
2d 256 (Ct. App.1995) (holding defendant's
entry into an attached garage constituted
first-degree burglary because the garage
was attached to the house; therefore,
burglary of the garage was burglary of
an inhabited dwelling house); People v.
Cunningham, 637 N.E.2d 1247, 1252 (Ill.
App. Ct. 1994) (holding "ordinarily an
attached garage is a 'dwelling' because
it is part of the structure in which
the owner or occupant lives");
State v. Lara, 587 P.2d 52, 53
(N.M. Ct. App. 1978) (holding "burglary
of the [attached] garage was burglary of
the dwelling house because the garage was
a part of the structure used as living
quarters"); People v. Green, 141 A.D.2d
760, 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) (holding
"[s]ince the garage in the present case
was structurally part of a building
which was used for overnight lodging of
various persons, it must be considered
as part of a dwelling"); White v. State,
630 S.W. 2d 340, 342 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982)
(holding an attached garage under the
same roof as the home would be considered
a habitation within the purview of the
penal code because the garage is a
structure appurtenant to and connected
to the house); State v. Murbach, 843 P.
2d 551, 553 (Wash. Ct. App 1993)
(holding the definition of a dwelling
under Washington's burglary statute
included an attached garage).
Had Wills' trial counsel moved for a
judgment of acquittal on the basis there
was insufficient evidence to support
a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage there were no persons
present in or upon the occupied
structure, it would have been overruled
by the court because the owner and his
family were present in the residence at
the time of the burglary.
Wills also claims his counsel was
ineffective for failing to object to
the jury instruction used by the district
court on the same ground; that the
living quarters were a separate and
independent occupied structure from the
attached garage. The instruction as
given stated:
The State must prove all of the following
elements of Burglary in the Second
Degree as to Count I:
1. On or about the 12th day of August,
2003, the defendant or someone he aided
and abetted broke into or entered the
residence at . . . .
2. The residence at . . . was an occupied
structure as defined in Instruction No. 29.
3. The defendant or the person he aided
and abetted did not have permission or
authority to break into the residence at ...
4. The defendant or the person he aided
and abetted did so with the specific
intent to commit a theft therein.
5. During the incident persons were present
in or upon the occupied structure.
If the State has proved all of the elements,
the defendant is guilty of Burglary in the
Second Degree. If the State has failed to prove
any of the elements, the defendant is not
guilty of Burglary in the Second Degree and
you will then consider the charge of
Attempted Burglary in the Second Degree
explained in Instruction No. 21.
(Emphasis added.)
Wills' claim is without merit. As we have
discussed, the residence is the one and
only "occupied structure" under the facts
of this case. Had Wills' trial counsel
made this objection to the instruction,
it would have been overruled.
Therefore, Wills' trial counsel is not
ineffective for failing to move
for a judgment of acquittal or objecting
to the instruction because there was no
legal basis for the motion or objection.
See State v. Hochmuth, 585 N.W.2d 234,
238 (Iowa 1998) (holding trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise an
issue that has no merit).
IV. Disposition.
We affirm the judgment of the district
court because Wills' trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise
meritless issues.
AFFIRMED.
Kent Wills
wrote:
[...]
>>>No answer to the above sputum is warranted.
>>
>> I accept your admission, by Gregborn LogicT standards, that every
>> claim I presented is 100% accurate.
>>
>
>
>Keep telling yourself that,
I shall, since there is no gain, as far as I can see, in lying to
myself.
>Polack.
http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com/race.html
That you're very PROUD of being a bigot is well known and
documented. The link above offers a very small sample of the total
PROOF that you're a bigot.
Since this PROOF exists, I again ask why you are so determined to
offer more? Do you worry that people might forget how you HATE all
minorities?
Kent Wills
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>What kind of logic did this use, Kent?
Not having devoted time to studying the matter, I can't really
know.
>Post your critique!
I would need to devote more time to the matter than I am willing.
>Tell us how good this logic was!
>
Clearly better than that of your attorney(s).
When your appeal for the conviction of BEATING your ex-wife was
filed, the Iowa Supreme Court REFUSED to hear arguments.
What evidence was presented at the trial that so totally PROVED
your guilt that the Iowa Supreme Court REFUSED to even entertain the
possibility that you were wrongfully convicted of BEATING your
ex-wife?
Please explain in detail. I'd really like to know.
Don't run and HIDE, as you so often do when you are made to face
the TRUTH. Let me, and anyone else reading, know exactly what
evidence was presented that not only got you convicted, but so totally
PROVED your guilt that an appeal wasn't possible.
--a true story