Ken Pangborn biography
freedom
--
"A man of LOW character. A man who cannot be believed. A man whose
"WORD" is absolutely worthless. A man of such disrepute that nothing he
says can be accepted as real.A man who often displays the must base and
vile behavior. And clearly a sociopath."
--Ken Pangborn, describing himself
freedom
>>From: freedom anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net
>>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, alt.mens-rights, fl.general,
>>alt.radio.oldtime
>
>a netvandal whose REAL Name is David Moore, fre...@anet.com
>
>>
>>http://www.anet.com/~freedom/pangk.html
>
>>"A man of LOW character. A man who cannot be believed.
>
> And Moore a man whose website, YOURS has been shown to be a colection of
>forgeries. For a man who likes to claim victimhood and persecution, you do
>seem to do things that are logically contradictory of your role as pathetic
>victim. Now why don't you spare the folks in here of your insane prattle?
>
You haven't "SHOWN" anything. Despite having been given every
opportunity to redeem yourself by posting proof of even ONE of your
lies, you remain a proven liar.
Guess which search engines MEN International has just been added to?
Poopsydoopsy4300
I R A Darth Aggie
freedom <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net>, in
<d0d61e12403409cd...@mixmaster.shinn.net> wrote:
+ You haven't "SHOWN" anything. Despite having been given every
+ opportunity to redeem yourself by posting proof of even ONE of your
+ lies, you remain a proven liar.
A liar like yourself, perhaps? when you gonna call the Florida Bar,
Davey?
James
--
Consulting Minister for Consultants, DNRC
The Bill of Rights is paid in Responsibilities - Jean McGuire
To cure your perl CGI problems, please look at:
<url:http://www.perl.com/CPAN/doc/FAQs/cgi/idiots-guide.html>
Wilbur Streett
>On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:15:26 -0400,
>freedom <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net>, in
><d0d61e12403409cd...@mixmaster.shinn.net> wrote:
>
>+ You haven't "SHOWN" anything. Despite having been given every
>+ opportunity to redeem yourself by posting proof of even ONE of your
>+ lies, you remain a proven liar.
>
>A liar like yourself, perhaps? when you gonna call the Florida Bar,
>Davey?
Hey, moron, you ever call the bar?
You have any clue what you're talking about?
You realize that Kenny Boy isn't a lawyer?
Wilbur
--------------------------------------------
Putting A Human Face On Technology ;-)
--------------------------------------------
Literally! http://www.monmouth.com/~wstreett/FaceIT/
I R A Darth Aggie
Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com>, in
<3976028f....@news.monmouth.com> wrote:
+ sy_n...@gurcragntba.pbz (I R A Darth Aggie) wrote:
+
+ >On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:15:26 -0400,
+ >freedom <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net>, in
+ ><d0d61e12403409cd...@mixmaster.shinn.net> wrote:
+ >
+ >+ You haven't "SHOWN" anything. Despite having been given every
+ >+ opportunity to redeem yourself by posting proof of even ONE of your
+ >+ lies, you remain a proven liar.
+ >
+ >A liar like yourself, perhaps? when you gonna call the Florida Bar,
+ >Davey?
+
+ Hey, moron, you ever call the bar?
Nope. I'm not the one making claims about practicing without
a license. I'm not the one in posession of the facts, so I would
have no standing to file a complaint.
+ You have any clue what you're talking about?
Yep. Do you have two brain cells to understand what the claim is?
Once more, with feeling:
Davey Moore: Ken is practicing law without a license!
Me: The Florida Bar's unlicensed practice number is: 850-561-5840.
File a complaint.
Davey Moore: Ken is practicing law without a license!
Me: file a complaint, or STFU.
That's it in a nutshell. I'm going to keep beating Davey boy about
the head til he either files a complaint or drops the charge. I'll
be generous and not rub his face in it if he quietly drops the
subject.
Which part of that do you not comprehend?
+ You realize that Kenny Boy isn't a lawyer?
So? If he isn't but is practicing law, that's a problem. It *should*
be brought to the attention of the Bar, if Davey Moore is a responsible
citizen.
Wilbur Streett
>On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 19:34:08 GMT,
>Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com>, in
><3976028f....@news.monmouth.com> wrote:
>+ sy_n...@gurcragntba.pbz (I R A Darth Aggie) wrote:
>+
>+ >On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:15:26 -0400,
>+ >freedom <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net>, in
>+ ><d0d61e12403409cd...@mixmaster.shinn.net> wrote:
>+ >
>+ >+ You haven't "SHOWN" anything. Despite having been given every
>+ >+ opportunity to redeem yourself by posting proof of even ONE of your
>+ >+ lies, you remain a proven liar.
>+ >
>+ >A liar like yourself, perhaps? when you gonna call the Florida Bar,
>+ >Davey?
>+
>+ Hey, moron, you ever call the bar?
>
>Nope. I'm not the one making claims about practicing without
>a license. I'm not the one in posession of the facts, so I would
>have no standing to file a complaint.
So you have no actual understanding of the Bar association. You have no
idea what sort of response they typically give to ANY complaint. You have
no idea if the Bar association has or has not had all of their authority
removed by the courts. You have no idea how often "unauthorized practice
of law" is support by members of the Bar, (Hint: 57,000 times in New Jersey
last year). But you think that David Moore is supposed to do what you say?
>+ You have any clue what you're talking about?
>
>Yep. Do you have two brain cells to understand what the claim is?
Yes.. and I fully understand that the Bar association engages in these
actions on a DAILY basis.
>Once more, with feeling:
>Davey Moore: Ken is practicing law without a license!
>Me: The Florida Bar's unlicensed practice number is: 850-561-5840.
> File a complaint.
Duh.. so you think that you know.. you make the call!
>Davey Moore: Ken is practicing law without a license!
>Me: file a complaint, or STFU.
>
>That's it in a nutshell. I'm going to keep beating Davey boy about
>the head til he either files a complaint or drops the charge. I'll
>be generous and not rub his face in it if he quietly drops the
>subject.
Gee, he has a significant list of charges on his web page that he has been
posting here, is this claim on that list?
>Which part of that do you not comprehend?
Your stupidity?
>+ You realize that Kenny Boy isn't a lawyer?
>
>So? If he isn't but is practicing law, that's a problem. It *should*
>be brought to the attention of the Bar, if Davey Moore is a responsible
>citizen.
ROTLFMAO..
I brought this issue to the Bar which has resulting in first degree
felonies being committed against fathers, and they DID NOTHING ABOUT IT.
I R A Darth Aggie
+ I brought this issue to the Bar which has resulting in first degree
+ felonies being committed against fathers, and they DID NOTHING ABOUT IT.
Florida, State of
Business & Professional Regulation
850-487-2252
Please tell me who you called, what they said.
Wilbur Streett
>On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 21:29:06 GMT,
>Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com>, in
><39761cba....@news.monmouth.com> wrote:
>
>+ I brought this issue to the Bar which has resulting in first degree
>+ felonies being committed against fathers, and they DID NOTHING ABOUT IT.
>
>Florida, State of
>Business & Professional Regulation
>850-487-2252
>
>Please tell me who you called, what they said.
I live in New Jersey.
I R A Darth Aggie
+ sy_n...@gurcragntba.pbz (I R A Darth Aggie) wrote:
+
+ >On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 21:29:06 GMT,
+ >Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com>, in
+ ><39761cba....@news.monmouth.com> wrote:
+ >
+ >+ I brought this issue to the Bar which has resulting in first degree
+ >+ felonies being committed against fathers, and they DID NOTHING ABOUT IT.
+ >
+ >Florida, State of
+ >Business & Professional Regulation
+ >850-487-2252
+ >
+ >Please tell me who you called, what they said.
+
+ I live in New Jersey.
Then run along, little boy.
Wilbur Streett
>On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 00:37:03 GMT,
>Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com>, in
><3976499c....@news.monmouth.com> wrote:
>+ sy_n...@gurcragntba.pbz (I R A Darth Aggie) wrote:
>+
>+ >On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 21:29:06 GMT,
>+ >Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com>, in
>+ ><39761cba....@news.monmouth.com> wrote:
>+ >
>+ >+ I brought this issue to the Bar which has resulting in first degree
>+ >+ felonies being committed against fathers, and they DID NOTHING ABOUT IT.
>+ >
>+ >Florida, State of
>+ >Business & Professional Regulation
>+ >850-487-2252
>+ >
>+ >Please tell me who you called, what they said.
>+
>+ I live in New Jersey.
>
>Then run along, little boy.
In other words, you have no idea what you're talking about, and for some
stupid reason think that the Bar and other groups which claim ethics and
integrity have ethics and integrity, and will not accept an out of state
claim.
Thanks for the documentation.
Wilbur Streett
>I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
>>
>> On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:15:26 -0400,
>> freedom <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net>, in
>> <d0d61e12403409cd...@mixmaster.shinn.net> wrote:
>>
>> + You haven't "SHOWN" anything. Despite having been given every
>> + opportunity to redeem yourself by posting proof of even ONE of your
>> + lies, you remain a proven liar.
>>
>> A liar like yourself, perhaps? when you gonna call the Florida Bar,
>> Davey?
>>
>
>Yes Davey, when are you going to call the Florida Bar?
Why don't you, asshole?
Wilbur Streett
>On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 00:37:03 GMT, Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
> : sy_n...@gurcragntba.pbz (I R A Darth Aggie) wrote:
> :
> : >On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 21:29:06 GMT,
> : >Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com>, in
> : ><39761cba....@news.monmouth.com> wrote:
> : >
> : >+ I brought this issue to the Bar which has resulting in first degree
> : >+ felonies being committed against fathers, and they DID NOTHING ABOUT IT.
> : >
> : >Florida, State of
> : >Business & Professional Regulation
> : >850-487-2252
> : >
> : >Please tell me who you called, what they said.
> :
> : I live in New Jersey.
>
>I know we don't stamp Bar rules on orange peels (new curriculum
>element for ag students james?). How on earth did you become an
>expert on Florida UPL procedures?
Gee, I know a few people from Florida and have followed up on a few issues
with them.
In addition, Kenny Boy has already claimed that hundreds of claims have
been asserted against him. Given what I've seen of his actions in this
newsgroup, why should I think that Florida has any ethics?
I could post a major article that I just read.. but why bother?
But please, show me where the Bar Association Rules don't say that
"Supporting the unauthorized practice of law is cause for disbarment" in
Florida?
Then check out the legal states of the "special masters" that they are
using in child support cases, and realize that any attorney representing
anyone in front of a "special master" is supporting UPL.
> : So you have no actual understanding of the Bar association.You have no
> : idea what sort of response they typically give to ANY complaint. You have
> : no idea if the Bar association has or has not had all of their authority
> : removed by the courts. You have no idea how often "unauthorized practice
> : of law" is support by members of the Bar
>
>That passage made charming reading the second time [1]. Isn't it true
>that
>
>- you have no actual understanding of The Florida Bar,
>- you don't know what The Florida Bar's authority actually is -- or
> for that matter, where it came from,
>- you have no idea how often "unauthorized practice of law is support by
> members of the (Florida) Bar", and
>- you really have no experience or expertise in Florida matters?
>
>What do you think the likelihood is others here may have actual
>knowledge of The Florida Bar's procedures, Florida law, and how it all
>works together? (Hint: See Newsgroups: header)
I really don't care. The law is the law. The actions that are not
supported by law result in "unlawful detention for profit and reward" which
if you knew the law, and other people knew the law, this shit would have
been put to bed a long time ago.
But that's not even getting into the intitiation of the action and the
selective enforcement issues as a result of private funding from the
WELFARE DEPARTMENT, which violates constitutional requirements for
"separation of powers".
>[1] A wise person said: "Be careful to pick tasty words because you
>never know when you'll have to eat them"
So stop trying to spit them out and swallow.
Wilbur Streett
>I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
>>
>> On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 00:37:03 GMT,
>> Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com>, in
>> <3976499c....@news.monmouth.com> wrote:
>> + sy_n...@gurcragntba.pbz (I R A Darth Aggie) wrote:
>> +
>> + >On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 21:29:06 GMT,
>> + >Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com>, in
>> + ><39761cba....@news.monmouth.com> wrote:
>> + >
>> + >+ I brought this issue to the Bar which has resulting in first degree
>> + >+ felonies being committed against fathers, and they DID NOTHING ABOUT IT.
>> + >
>> + >Florida, State of
>> + >Business & Professional Regulation
>> + >850-487-2252
>> + >
>> + >Please tell me who you called, what they said.
>
>> I live in New Jersey.
>
>That explains a lot.
Your comment explains even more.
Wilbur Streett
>Wilbur Streett wrote:
>>
>> Neil <new...@garnet.acns.fsu.edu> wrote:
>>
>> >I R A Darth Aggie wrote:
>> >>
>> >> On Tue, 18 Jul 2000 20:15:26 -0400,
>> >> freedom <anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net>, in
>> >> <d0d61e12403409cd...@mixmaster.shinn.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> + You haven't "SHOWN" anything. Despite having been given every
>> >> + opportunity to redeem yourself by posting proof of even ONE of your
>> >> + lies, you remain a proven liar.
>> >>
>> >> A liar like yourself, perhaps? when you gonna call the Florida Bar,
>> >> Davey?
>> >>
>> >
>> >Yes Davey, when are you going to call the Florida Bar?
>>
>> Why don't you, asshole?
>>
>> Wilbur
>
>Because no one here made the allegations.
Nope.. sorry, but you are demonstrating your low reading comprehension
skills.
>And that's Mr. Asshole to you.
Oh no, with a .edu.. you're still a kiddy.
>Now run along.
That's all you've been able to do so far..
Wilbur Streett
>On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:09:50 GMT, Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
> : hgol...@mpcs.com (Howard Goldstein) wrote:
> :
> : >On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 00:37:03 GMT, Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
> : > : sy_n...@gurcragntba.pbz (I R A Darth Aggie) wrote:
> : > :
> : > : >On Wed, 19 Jul 2000 21:29:06 GMT,
> : > : >Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com>, in
> : > : ><39761cba....@news.monmouth.com> wrote:
> : > : >
> : > : >+ I brought this issue to the Bar which has resulting in first degree
> : > : >+ felonies being committed against fathers, and they DID NOTHING ABOUT IT.
> : > : >
> : > : >Florida, State of
> : > : >Business & Professional Regulation
> : > : >850-487-2252
> : > : >
> : > : >Please tell me who you called, what they said.
> : > :
> : > : I live in New Jersey.
> : >
> : >I know we don't stamp Bar rules on orange peels (new curriculum
> : >element for ag students james?). How on earth did you become an
> : >expert on Florida UPL procedures?
> :
> : Gee, I know a few people from Florida and have followed up on a few issues
> : with them.
>
>Did any of these issues involve a sworn UPL complaint actually
>delivered to the proper Florida Bar UPL committee?
Oh, a few. But you haven't bothered to catch on to the truth yet, so why
would I expect otherwise?
> : In addition, Kenny Boy has already claimed that hundreds of claims have
> : been asserted against him. Given what I've seen of his actions in this
> : newsgroup, why should I think that Florida has any ethics?
> :
> : I could post a major article that I just read.. but why bother?
> :
> : But please, show me where the Bar Association Rules don't say that
> : "Supporting the unauthorized practice of law is cause for disbarment" in
> : Florida?
>
>I can't do that.
Why not? They don't have the bar association rules in the same format as
all of the other bar association rules? Even in New Jersey they have them
posted on a web site. Go to http://www.findlaw.com and follow the florida
links.. You'll find the bar association rules there somewhere.
I've actually bothered to read the ones in New Jersey.
> : Then check out the legal states of the "special masters" that they are
> : using in child support cases, and realize that any attorney representing
> : anyone in front of a "special master" is supporting UPL.
>
>OK, can I check it out online?
You should be able to.
I've had discussions about this with a few guys from Florida.
Fath...@aol.com, who posts to this newsgroup on occasion, knows about
this stuff.
> : > : So you have no actual understanding of the Bar association.You have no
> : > : idea what sort of response they typically give to ANY complaint. You have
> : > : no idea if the Bar association has or has not had all of their authority
> : > : removed by the courts. You have no idea how often "unauthorized practice
> : > : of law" is support by members of the Bar
> : >
> : >That passage made charming reading the second time [1]. Isn't it true
> : >that
> : >
> : >- you have no actual understanding of The Florida Bar,
> : >- you don't know what The Florida Bar's authority actually is -- or
> : > for that matter, where it came from,
> : >- you have no idea how often "unauthorized practice of law is support by
> : > members of the (Florida) Bar", and
> : >- you really have no experience or expertise in Florida matters?
> : >
> : >What do you think the likelihood is others here may have actual
> : >knowledge of The Florida Bar's procedures, Florida law, and how it all
> : >works together? (Hint: See Newsgroups: header)
> :
> : I really don't care. The law is the law. The actions that are not
> : supported by law result in "unlawful detention for profit and reward" which
> : if you knew the law, and other people knew the law, this shit would have
> : been put to bed a long time ago.
>
>The Tampa UPL committee could sure save some time if they'd only print
>out fl.general?
"Unlawful detention for the purpose of profit and reward" is Kidnapping. A
first degree felony. When it's done in an organized fashion, it's
Racketeering. Unlawful is by definition, without any basis in the law. So
show me where it says in the Florida Law that a person that is not a Judge
can send out a notice from the Welfare Department and then have them arrest
if they do not appear? The people which have experienced that particular
action have been subjected to "unlawful detention" which is caused by the
the Welfare departments computer system specification, under the control of
Lockheed Martin. Not by the SS IV-D law, which specifically does not
define that process. In fact, it specifically says, "and nothing shall be
done to deprive a person of his right to due process", and since the SS
IV-D law is a federal law anyway, it has nothing to do with the actions of
the state. But check out how the "special masters" are paid for by the
Welfare Department. Check out how the arrests are paid for by the "welfare
department" and check out how the despite that the entire process is
guarenteed to be funded by the welfare department, that the Judges have a
"trust fund" which they receive benefits from. Last I checked, a trust
fund was to insure that there were sufficient funds to maintain a process,
not in order to provide a payoff to the Judges, who are swore to uphold the
law, constitution, etc.. but that's probably why they act outside the law
in suporting this criminal racket.
> : But that's not even getting into the intitiation of the action and the
> : selective enforcement issues as a result of private funding from the
> : WELFARE DEPARTMENT, which violates constitutional requirements for
> : "separation of powers".
>
>It's not clear how any of this excuses a failing at such a simple
>matter as filing the required form.
Trust. If they allow a major criminal racket to persist, why should anyone
waste time filing a complaint about Kenny Boy?
> : >[1] A wise person said: "Be careful to pick tasty words because you
> : >never know when you'll have to eat them"
> :
> : So stop trying to spit them out and swallow.
> :
>
>Your newsreader appends tons of empty lines to your posts. What's up
>with that?
The local ISP has a filter that will block any post with more included text
than new. Which means that I have to put in blank lines to bypass the
filter for simple responses. Hence I added a couple lines to my footer.
PangK
>Newsgroups: fl.general, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>>It's not clear how any of this excuses a failing at such a simple matter as
filing the required form.
>Trust. If they allow a major criminal racket to persist, why should anyone
waste time filing a complaint about Kenny Boy?
Still smarting with the rejection of your complaints a couple months ago, eh
Wilby?
freedom
later when they've been cornered and proven for what they are. In Ken
Pangborn's case, the "one armed man" takes on the form of a shadowy,
anonymous figure or group of unnamed people. Whom, Ken assures us at
great length, believe in him totally and (silently) support everything
he says and does.
Since I've posted my challenge to Ken Pangborn at
http://www.anet.com/~freedom/terms.html (which, if he accepts, will
result in me removing my web pages and ceasing to comment on what a
liar and fraud he is), he's tried every trick he can think of to weasel
out and save face. Read on, and you'll see his "one armed man" tactic
at work:
On 21 Jul 2000 17:32:42 GMT pa...@aol.com (PangK) wrote:
>>From: WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett)
>>Newsgroups: fl.general, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>
>>>Did any of these issues involve a sworn UPL complaint actually
>>>delivered to the proper Florida Bar UPL committee?
>>
>>Oh, a few. But you haven't bothered to catch on to the truth yet, so why
>>would I expect otherwise?
>>
>
> Oh but WILBY, you seemed not to have that attitude a few months ago when you
>TRIED (and failed) to send them.
>
>Oh Wilby, you may find your BUDDY's
>wish for PROOF and his gloating lately
>may be hard to swallow.
Actually, what's hard for people to "swallow" or comprehend is: if you
are so desperate to have my web pages taken down, why have you not
responded to my challenge to post proof of any of your claims about me?
> A certain "officer" who was a superior of Mr. Moore
>while he was in California says he is sending me some interesting documents on
>your HERO.
A lie which we've all heard before. Except that last time it was a
"sergeant" whom, oddly enough, seems to have been commissioned since
you dreamed him up.
I do note that he still hasn't been assigned a name.
> Oh this all is starting to get to be some real fun now.
Exposing you as a liar? I agree.
> I wonder IF
>Davey wants all this personal info put on the net? Do you think so? I told him
>once before to be careful of what you wish for. I am telling him AND YOU again.
>You REALLY don't want to demand this. The continued DEMANDS and infantile
>taunts will be regarded as PERMISSION to post ANY and ALL the personal info. If
>your LOVER doesn't want it put up, he should SAY SO.
>Otherwise I will assume his continued taunts to be his permission.
I have already stated that you have "permission" to post anything which
PROVES any of your statements about me, as listed at
http://www.anet.com/~freedom/claims.html. Since I know that you lied
about everything, you have nothing of value to post. Nor are you
talking to any "officer" who was ever a "superior" of mine. Over two
years of harassing and stalking me, you'd think that you would have
come up with new tactics by now. Your old ones are getting boring.
But, if you think you have information which proves that I was
discharged from the service under anything other than an honorable
discharge, or if you have documentation which proves a "1000-mile"
restraining order, feel free to share it.
Can we expect this on the twelfth of never? Like the promised proof
for all of your other lies?
(as Ken Pangborn gets added to two more search engines)
freedom
>>From: WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett)
>>Newsgroups: fl.general, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>
>>>It's not clear how any of this excuses a failing at such a simple matter as
>filing the required form.
>
>>Trust. If they allow a major criminal racket to persist, why should anyone
>waste time filing a complaint about Kenny Boy?
>
> Still smarting with the rejection of your complaints a couple months ago, eh
>Wilby?
>
>
Probably not as bad as you're smarting over your continuing failure to
provide proof for any of your statements, as described at
http://www.anet.com/~freedom/claims.html.
PangK
>Newsgroups: fl.general, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, wi.general
>> A certain "officer" who was a superior of Mr. Moore while he was in
California says he is sending me some interesting documents on your HERO.
The last time it WAS a sergeant, the husband of one of the women you RAPED
David. Raped by BLACKMAILING her into having sex with you. This time I am
getting OFFICIAL documents per your request.
>if you
>are so desperate to have my web pages taken down, why have you not
>responded to my challenge to post proof of any of your claims about me?
Desperate David? Naw, you are like a bow of yarn to a CAT. Fun to play with.
>> I wonder IF Davey wants all this personal info put on the net?
>I have already stated that you have "permission" to post anything which
>PROVES any of your statements about me, as listed at
>http://www.anet.com/~freedom/claims.html.
Recall when I said on soc.veterans 3 years ago to be careful of what you wish
for. ANd oh, HOW you SCREAMED like a 2 year old when I did. Just want to take
care of all the legal steps here. A copy of your PERMISSION has been sent to
the appropriate law enforcement agency Davey. Just to make everything official
in advance.
>Nor are you talking to any "officer" who was ever a "superior" of mine.
Yep, although when YOU were on active duty he was a lower rank officer than
he is now. A HINT Davey, he has something to do with TANKS... And he kNOWS your
pathetic SORRY ass.
>or if you have documentation which proves a "1000-mile"
>restraining order, feel free to share it.
>
How about 1,000 feet? That count too?
>Can we expect this on the twelfth of never? Like the promised proof
>for all of your other lies?
>
No should be here in 7 - 10 days.
freedom
>>From: freedom anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net
>>Newsgroups: fl.general, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, wi.general
>
>>> A certain "officer" who was a superior of Mr. Moore while he was in
>California says he is sending me some interesting documents on your HERO.
>
> The last time it WAS a sergeant, the husband of one of the women you RAPED
>David. Raped by BLACKMAILING her into having sex with you.
Another one of your lies. Like your classic about me "impersonating an
AOL postmaster" to "extort sex from a female user".
But, like last time, it was a figment of your imagination.
This time I am
>getting OFFICIAL documents per your request.
>
>
>
>>if you
>>are so desperate to have my web pages taken down, why have you not
>>responded to my challenge to post proof of any of your claims about me?
>
>Desperate David? Naw, you are like a bow of yarn to a CAT. Fun to play with.
>
>>> I wonder IF Davey wants all this personal info put on the net?
>
>>I have already stated that you have "permission" to post anything which
>>PROVES any of your statements about me, as listed at
>>http://www.anet.com/~freedom/claims.html.
>
> Recall when I said on soc.veterans 3 years ago to be careful of what you wish
>for. ANd oh, HOW you SCREAMED like a 2 year old when I did. Just want to take
>care of all the legal steps here. A copy of your PERMISSION has been sent to
>the appropriate law enforcement agency Davey. Just to make everything official
>in advance.
>
>>Nor are you talking to any "officer" who was ever a "superior" of mine.
>
> Yep, although when YOU were on active duty he was a lower rank officer than
>he is now. A HINT Davey, he has something to do with TANKS... And he kNOWS your
>pathetic SORRY ass.
(yawn)
>
>
>
>>or if you have documentation which proves a "1000-mile"
>>restraining order, feel free to share it.
>>
>
> How about 1,000 feet? That count too?
What "counts" is your claim as stated...that I was prohibited from
coming within 1000 miles of my wife and child.
>
>>Can we expect this on the twelfth of never? Like the promised proof
>>for all of your other lies?
>>
>
> No should be here in 7 - 10 days.
I won't hold my breath. Even if there is any "paperwork", it'll be
another of your ploys to post something which doesn't address the
issues at hand. As typical.
Wilbur Streett
>>From: freedom anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net
>>Newsgroups: fl.general, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, wi.general
>
>>> A certain "officer" who was a superior of Mr. Moore while he was in
>California says he is sending me some interesting documents on your HERO.
>
> The last time it WAS a sergeant, the husband of one of the women you RAPED
>David. Raped by BLACKMAILING her into having sex with you. This time I am
>getting OFFICIAL documents per your request.
Blackmailed her into having sex? You want to show me where it defines that
as rape?
You're pathetic.
<snip>
freedom
Streett) wrote:
>pa...@aol.com (PangK) wrote:
>
>>>From: freedom anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net
>>>Newsgroups: fl.general, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, wi.general
>>
>>>> A certain "officer" who was a superior of Mr. Moore while he was in
>>California says he is sending me some interesting documents on your HERO.
>>
>> The last time it WAS a sergeant, the husband of one of the women you RAPED
>>David. Raped by BLACKMAILING her into having sex with you. This time I am
>>getting OFFICIAL documents per your request.
>
>Blackmailed her into having sex? You want to show me where it defines that
>as rape?
He's been telling this lie also for about two years. The best
variation was where I "impersonated an AOL admin" for the purpose of
extorting sex from a female user.
Wilbur Streett
>On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 16:34:50 GMT, Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
> : hgol...@mpcs.com (Howard Goldstein) wrote:
> :
> : >On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:09:50 GMT, Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
> : > : hgol...@mpcs.com (Howard Goldstein) wrote:
>
> : >Did any of these issues involve a sworn UPL complaint actually
> : >delivered to the proper Florida Bar UPL committee?
> :
> : Oh, a few. But you haven't bothered to catch on to the truth yet, so why
> : would I expect otherwise?
>
>Truth would have provided noticable contrast to the horseshit you've
>piled on in here.
What "horseshit" do you claim that I have piled on?
Please find a single statement that is not 100% correct and true in
anything that I have written in this thread.
>There's no need to make this so difficult. If you've
>actually filed one then a simple "I filed the sworn complaint with the
>UPL office in Florida in XXXX on blahblahblah and they {sent it back
>because [reason] |didn't do [whatever]}" will address the truth of
>your claims.
Your attempts to limit the discussion, and force me to engage in your own
stupid waste of time leave me unimpressed.
So please document how my claims of Lawyers engaging in tens of thousands
of acts of "supporting the UPL" in Florida are incorrect in some way?
>If not, say so (it's not a crime). I'm interested in
>exploring your curious ideas about Florida. Whether you win or lose in
>the pangborn flamewar isn't important to me.
What curious ideas do you think that I have about Florida?
I'm sorry that you haven't addressed what I wrote, and can't believe the
horrible truth in what I have said.
> : I live in New Jersey.
>
>Where there's to be found a veritable font of experience and
>knowledge on Florida. The form is at
><http://www.flabar.org/newflabar/consumerservices/general/consumer.pam/complain.html>
>and has room for the state. I'm sure they'll mail you a form if you phone.
So file about 10,000 of them yourself. You live in Florida.
> : > : But please, show me where the Bar Association Rules don't say that
> : > : "Supporting the unauthorized practice of law is cause for disbarment" in
> : > : Florida?
> : >
> : >I can't do that.
> :
> : Why not?
>
>I don't suppose you can answer your own question and show where the
>rules don't say that "Supporting the unauthorized practice of law is
>cause for disbarment" in Florida. Read your question closely.
I understand what I said.
You can't show that the Florida Bar Rules do not include that phrase. As
that phrase is included in every Bar Association Rules that I have bothered
to read.
The lawyer clan specifically includes that phrase for a reason. If you're
unable to show that the phrase is not in the bar association rules, then
that is not my problem
Heck, they have search engines.. and you can search the rules rather
simply.
> : > : Then check out the legal states of the "special masters" that they are
> : > : using in child support cases, and realize that any attorney representing
> : > : anyone in front of a "special master" is supporting UPL.
> : >
> : >OK, can I check it out online?
> :
> : You should be able to.
> :
> : I've had discussions about this with a few guys from Florida.
> : Fath...@aol.com, who posts to this newsgroup on occasion, knows about
> : this stuff.
>
>Was it his experience that soured you?
"Soured me"?
I'm sorry that you can't handle the truth of what I have said.
> : >The Tampa UPL committee could sure save some time if they'd only print
> : >out fl.general?
> :
> : "Unlawful detention for the purpose of profit and reward" is Kidnapping. A
> : first degree felony. When it's done in an organized fashion, it's
> : Racketeering. Unlawful is by definition, without any basis in the law. So
> : show me where it says in the Florida Law that a person that is not a Judge
> : can send out a notice from the Welfare Department and then have them arrest
> : if they do not appear? The people which have experienced that particular
> : action have been subjected to "unlawful detention" which is caused by the
> : the Welfare departments computer system specification, under the control of
> : Lockheed Martin. Not by the SS IV-D law, which specifically does not
> : define that process. In fact, it specifically says, "and nothing shall be
> : done to deprive a person of his right to due process", and since the SS
> : IV-D law is a federal law anyway, it has nothing to do with the actions of
> : the state. But check out how the "special masters" are paid for by the
> : Welfare Department. Check out how the arrests are paid for by the "welfare
> : department" and check out how the despite that the entire process is
> : guarenteed to be funded by the welfare department, that the Judges have a
> : "trust fund" which they receive benefits from. Last I checked, a trust
> : fund was to insure that there were sufficient funds to maintain a process,
> : not in order to provide a payoff to the Judges, who are swore to uphold the
> : law, constitution, etc.. but that's probably why they act outside the law
> : in suporting this criminal racket.
>
>You had me going along there and then you throw in the payoff stuff.
You want to see the NJ Financial Statement, complete with the CS Trust Fund
for Judges? I also have the contract that specifically defines that all CS
expenses are PREPAID by Welfare, and that they will terminate immediatly if
Welfare fails to make a payment.
So you think that Lockheed Martin and the Florida Bar, along with the
Florida Judiciary were so grossly incompetant that they were not able to
negotiate the same deal for themselves? Or that the CS enforcement people
are for some reason not given the same "incentive" payments or even just
the normal enumeration by the DHHS?
>Sad to say, whether the trust fund finances under the robe blowjobs or
>not doesn't excuse failure to simply file the friggin form.
I'm sorry that you don't understand that filing the form is a waste of
time, as they are not going to give up the multi-billion dollar business
just because someone truly points out that the acts are criminal.
But, if you want to prove me wrong, verify what I have said and file the
complaint yourself.
> : > : But that's not even getting into the intitiation of the action and the
> : > : selective enforcement issues as a result of private funding from the
> : > : WELFARE DEPARTMENT, which violates constitutional requirements for
> : > : "separation of powers".
> : >
> : >It's not clear how any of this excuses a failing at such a simple
> : >matter as filing the required form.
> :
> : Trust. If they allow a major criminal racket to persist, why should anyone
> : waste time filing a complaint about Kenny Boy?
>
>Sure seems far more likely to me that there's no filing because
>there's been no cause to complain. Bouqets of roses to all of the
>Florida UPL committees!
Only 0.02 percent of malpractice complaints are ending up being
prosecuted..
What makes you think that they are going to disbar 40% of the Florida Bar?
Wilbur Streett
>On Sun, 23 Jul 2000 01:37:17 GMT, Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
> : hgol...@mpcs.com (Howard Goldstein) wrote:
> :
> : >On Fri, 21 Jul 2000 16:34:50 GMT, Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
> : > : hgol...@mpcs.com (Howard Goldstein) wrote:
> : > :
> : > : >On Thu, 20 Jul 2000 18:09:50 GMT, Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
> : > : > : hgol...@mpcs.com (Howard Goldstein) wrote:
> : >
> : > : >Did any of these issues involve a sworn UPL complaint actually
> : > : >delivered to the proper Florida Bar UPL committee?
> : > :
> : > : Oh, a few. But you haven't bothered to catch on to the truth yet, so why
> : > : would I expect otherwise?
> : >
> : >Truth would have provided noticable contrast to the horseshit you've
> : >piled on in here.
> :
> : What "horseshit" do you claim that I have piled on?
>
>In that you've not provided a single example of Fla. UPL committee
>malfeasance or nonfeasance it's all horseshit.
Tens of thousands of examples of Unauthorized Practice of Law, which have
resulted in the incarceration of thousands of men, all funded by the
Welfare department, and not a single complaint or action by the UPL
committee and you think that I didn't document something?
> :
> : Please find a single statement that is not 100% correct and true in
> : anything that I have written in this thread.
> :
> : >There's no need to make this so difficult. If you've
> : >actually filed one then a simple "I filed the sworn complaint with the
> : >UPL office in Florida in XXXX on blahblahblah and they {sent it back
> : >because [reason] |didn't do [whatever]}" will address the truth of
> : >your claims.
> :
> : Your attempts to limit the discussion, and force me to engage in your own
> : stupid waste of time leave me unimpressed.
>
>Doesn't seem quite fair of you to fault me for that. I'm simply
>responding to your fl.general posts concerning the non-filing of a UPL
>complaint in Florida.
No, you are attempting to limit the discussion to that. Sorry that you
can't.
> : So please document how my claims of Lawyers engaging in tens of thousands
> : of acts of "supporting the UPL" in Florida are incorrect in some way?
> :
> : >If not, say so (it's not a crime). I'm interested in
> : >exploring your curious ideas about Florida. Whether you win or lose in
> : >the pangborn flamewar isn't important to me.
> :
> : What curious ideas do you think that I have about Florida?
>
>Each post arrives with fresh ones. I can't get past the basic issue
>which for me seems to arise out of your confusing an imagined outcome
>with an event that actually happened.
Oh, I'm sorry that you can't deal with reality.
> : I'm sorry that you haven't addressed what I wrote, and can't believe the
> : horrible truth in what I have said.
> :
> : > : I live in New Jersey.
> : >
> : >Where there's to be found a veritable font of experience and
> : >knowledge on Florida. The form is at
> : ><http://www.flabar.org/newflabar/consumerservices/general/consumer.pam/complain.html>
> : >and has room for the state. I'm sure they'll mail you a form if you phone.
> :
> : So file about 10,000 of them yourself. You live in Florida.
>
>I'm going to have to decline that invitation to perjure myself.
So please show how it would be perjury. I've given you more than enough
information to be able to verify what I have said.
> : > : > : But please, show me where the Bar Association Rules don't say that
> : > : > : "Supporting the unauthorized practice of law is cause for disbarment" in
> : > : > : Florida?
> : > : >
> : > : >I can't do that.
> : > :
> : > : Why not?
> : >
> : >I don't suppose you can answer your own question and show where the
> : >rules don't say that "Supporting the unauthorized practice of law is
> : >cause for disbarment" in Florida. Read your question closely.
> :
> : I understand what I said.
>
>Doubtful, as Florida's doesn't say that (surely none are drafted as
>inartfully as you've done) to answer the question would require
>reproduction of all the rules.
.. and I even gave you the path to finding them on http://www.FindLaw.com
>Yes, I remember what the provision
>you're trying to bring up is all about. Why Wilbur I'll concede that
>you raise an interesting issue if indeed these people of whom you're
>complaining about for other reasons are actually practicing law.
They are jailing people. You want to claim that they are not practicing
law?
>What isn't clear is *your* level of actual experience with Florida UPL
>enforcement. You don't *seem* to have any at all.
I don't need much experience. Logic proves things quite nicely. Men are
being incarcerated to the tune of thousands a year by this "special
masters" while they often are not even people with college degrees. If the
Florida Bar was really interested in preventing UPL, then the entire
process would not even exist.
If you can find a refutation for this argument, I'd like to see it.
> : You can't show that the Florida Bar Rules do not include that phrase. As
> : that phrase is included in every Bar Association Rules that I have bothered
> : to read.
> :
> : The lawyer clan specifically includes that phrase for a reason. If you're
> : unable to show that the phrase is not in the bar association rules, then
> : that is not my problem
> :
> : Heck, they have search engines.. and you can search the rules rather
> : simply.
> :
> :
> : > : > : Then check out the legal states of the "special masters" that they are
> : > : > : using in child support cases, and realize that any attorney representing
> : > : > : anyone in front of a "special master" is supporting UPL.
> : > : >
> : > : >OK, can I check it out online?
> : > :
> : > : You should be able to.
> : > :
> : > : I've had discussions about this with a few guys from Florida.
> : > : Fath...@aol.com, who posts to this newsgroup on occasion, knows about
> : > : this stuff.
> : >
> : >Was it his experience that soured you?
> :
> : "Soured me"?
>
>You sir are the one speaking in codes, not I.
"speaking in codes" You mean "quoting the law"?
> : I'm sorry that you can't handle the truth of what I have said.
>
>The only truth at issue is the truthfulness of your claims to actual
>experience with Florida's UPL enforcement system.
How much experience do I need, when I can see that UPL is happening every
day IN THE COURT HOUSE, initiated and paid for by the Welfare Department,
resulting in the false imprisonment of men in debtors prison?
> : > : >The Tampa UPL committee could sure save some time if they'd only print
>(but you won't admit to having tried it. You don't actually know if
>it would succeed)
I have researched the process in New Jersey all the way to the Supreme
Court, who supervise the "special masters". You think that they are going
to admit that they are engaged in first degree felonies?
> : as they are not going to give up the multi-billion dollar business
> : just because someone truly points out that the acts are criminal.
>
>Help me to understand why you're speaking in nuances with respect to
>your actual Florida experience(s)
I have not spoken in nuances. But obviously you do not care about the UPL
anyway, as you would be so outraged with what I have already documented.
But when they moved this to Traffic Tickets, you didn't realize it. And
when they move it to debt collection, you'll be too late.
> : But, if you want to prove me wrong, verify what I have said and file the
> : complaint yourself.
>
>Your failure to file it yourself or for that matter provide *any*
>details concerning Florida UPL mal/non/misfeasance is evidence of your
>lack of actual experience in these matters.
ROTFLMAO..
Is that the best argument you can come up with?
> : > : > : But that's not even getting into the intitiation of the action and the
> : > : > : selective enforcement issues as a result of private funding from the
> : > : > : WELFARE DEPARTMENT, which violates constitutional requirements for
> : > : > : "separation of powers".
> : > : >
> : > : >It's not clear how any of this excuses a failing at such a simple
> : > : >matter as filing the required form.
> : > :
> : > : Trust. If they allow a major criminal racket to persist, why should anyone
> : > : waste time filing a complaint about Kenny Boy?
> : >
> : >Sure seems far more likely to me that there's no filing because
> : >there's been no cause to complain. Bouqets of roses to all of the
> : >Florida UPL committees!
> :
> : Only 0.02 percent of malpractice complaints are ending up being
> : prosecuted..
>
>which even if true doesn't justify failure to swear out a UPL
>complaint against a non-attorney.
So what is the excuse of all of the lawyers in Florida?
> : What makes you think that they are going to disbar 40% of the Florida Bar?
>
>Why would I think that?
Because they have appeared in front of the "special masters" which is by
definition supporting the unauthorized practice of law.
Wilbur Streett
>"Wilbur Streett" <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote in message news:3979cce8.2126636281@news.monmouth.com...
>> pa...@aol.com (PangK) wrote:
>>
>> >>From: freedom anm...@mixmaster.shinn.net
>> >>Newsgroups: fl.general, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated, wi.general
>> >
>> >>> A certain "officer" who was a superior of Mr. Moore while he was in
>> >California says he is sending me some interesting documents on your HERO.
>> >
>> > The last time it WAS a sergeant, the husband of one of the women you RAPED
>> >David. Raped by BLACKMAILING her into having sex with you. This time I am
>> >getting OFFICIAL documents per your request.
>>
>> Blackmailed her into having sex? You want to show me where it defines that
>> as rape?
>
>Apparently, Wilbur has no moral difficulties with blackmail.
Blackmail is not rape.
Sorry you can't handle that.
But what was she covering up, that she had to screw him in the first place?
>> You're pathetic.
>
>Yes, Wilbur, you certainly are.
ROTLFMAO...
Wilbur Streett
>On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:27:01 GMT, Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
> : hgol...@mpcs.com (Howard Goldstein) wrote:
> : >What isn't clear is *your* level of actual experience with Florida UPL
> : >enforcement. You don't *seem* to have any at all.
> :
> : I don't need much experience.
>
>Which is awfully convenient given your apparent complete lack of
>experience with Florida UPL enforcement procedure.
>
> : Logic proves things quite nicely.
>
>That's for sure!
Yes, so much so that you can't respond to the body of the post.
So why does the Florida Bar support the UPL by the "Special Masters" which
has occured in tens of thousands of cases?
Wilbur Streett
>On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 18:06:54 GMT, Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
> : hgol...@mpcs.com (Howard Goldstein) wrote:
> :
> : >On Mon, 24 Jul 2000 15:27:01 GMT, Wilbur Streett <WStr...@shell.monmouth.com> wrote:
> : > : hgol...@mpcs.com (Howard Goldstein) wrote:
> : > : >What isn't clear is *your* level of actual experience with Florida UPL
> : > : >enforcement. You don't *seem* to have any at all.
> : > :
> : > : I don't need much experience.
> : >
> : >Which is awfully convenient given your apparent complete lack of
> : >experience with Florida UPL enforcement procedure.
> : >
> : > : Logic proves things quite nicely.
> : >
> : >That's for sure!
> :
> : Yes, so much so that you can't respond to the body of the post.
>
>My response == Yawn
>
>Come on back when you have something verifiable to post concerning
>Florida's UPL committees.
I already mentioned that you go and verify what I wrote, which is more than
sufficient to destroy the entire claim of integrity of any body responsible
for preventing UPL in Florida.
Respond or you have already proven that you can't.
PangK
>Newsgroups: fl.general, alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>So why does the Florida Bar support the UPL by the "Special Masters" which
has occured in tens of thousands of cases?
Continue to display your TOTAL and COMPLETE ignorance of the law WILBY!
TOTAL IGNORANCE!
(HINT: "Special Masters" in Florida BY its CONSTITUTION are JUDGES.
Wilbur Streett
Nope. The "special masters" that I'm talking about aren't the "Judges".
But you can't follow more than one sentence at a time, which is why you
don't know what you're talking about.
Wilbur Streett
>>(HINT: "Special Masters" in Florida BY its CONSTITUTION are JUDGES.
>
>Nope. The "special masters" that I'm talking about aren't the "Judges".
>
>But you can't follow more than one sentence at a time, which is why you
>don't know what you're talking about.
So Kenny Boy wishes to make the stupid assertion that "Child Support
Hearing Officers" are Judges..
ROTFLMAO..
PangK
>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>>(HINT: "Special Masters" in Florida BY its CONSTITUTION are JUDGES.
>Nope. The "special masters" that I'm talking about aren't the "Judges".
You know WILBY, ion a "NORMAL" persopn I'd suggest they LEARN about the
legal system of a state before they SHOOT THEIR MOUTH OFF. I realize that with
a BRAGGARD like YOU that is a waste of time.
Tto the rest of the people, in FLORIDA
( a state where WIlby has ABSOLUTELY NO knowledge) A "Special Master" is an
appointed "Judge" for specific matters. The office IS Constitutional DESPITE
the flatulanet LOUDMOUTH from New Jersey who THINKS he has ALL the answers!
They are approved by the Florida Supreme Court and the Governor. But NOT by the
GREAT GOD Wilbur Streett.
WILBY who has almost NO legal knowledge does NOT realize that MANY states
use "Special Masters" or in some states they can be called "Family Court
Commissioners." Wilby loves to "PLAY" lawyer. But his "LEGAL" ADVICE is
typically HORRID.
Wilbur Streett
>>From: WStr...@shell.monmouth.com (Wilbur Streett)
>>Newsgroups: alt.dads-rights.unmoderated
>
>>>(HINT: "Special Masters" in Florida BY its CONSTITUTION are JUDGES.
>
>>Nope. The "special masters" that I'm talking about aren't the "Judges".
>
> You know WILBY, ion a "NORMAL" persopn I'd suggest they LEARN about the
>legal system of a state before they SHOOT THEIR MOUTH OFF. I realize that with
>a BRAGGARD like YOU that is a waste of time.
>
> Tto the rest of the people, in FLORIDA
>( a state where WIlby has ABSOLUTELY NO knowledge) A "Special Master" is an
>appointed "Judge" for specific matters.
Yep.. and unconstitutional.
>The office IS Constitutional DESPITE
>the flatulanet LOUDMOUTH from New Jersey who THINKS he has ALL the answers!
Yeah, sure. They allow cases to be run by Lockheed Martin, under the
authority of the Welfare department, but it's constitutional.. ROTFLMAO.
>They are approved by the Florida Supreme Court and the Governor. But NOT by the
>GREAT GOD Wilbur Streett.
So why can't you supply the law supporting their actions?
> WILBY who has almost NO legal knowledge does NOT realize that MANY states
>use "Special Masters" or in some states they can be called "Family Court
>Commissioners." Wilby loves to "PLAY" lawyer. But his "LEGAL" ADVICE is
>typically HORRID.
Gee, I'll post the 14 pages that I wrote last night showing just how little
you understand..