"I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93." - Dan Sullivan
Greegor
G > That was YOU wasn't it, Dan?
DJS3 > You know it was, grag,
G > Yep.
DJS3 > and you know I said it about YOU
G > Yes. Quite ironic, really.
DJS3 > Not really.
G > A guy named Dan who had 25 investigations
G > for child abuse and 5 Foundeds, one founded
G > for child sexual abuse, yet he thinks it's smart
G > to say "Where there's smoke there's fire."
G > about a guy who was once founded for NEGLECT?
G > That seems a tad ironic!
DJS3 > All my foundeds were reversed to unfounded.
Got proof?
DJS3 > YOUR founded CPS report for maltreatment
DJS3 > still stands and so do your convictions for
DJS3 > abusing your mentally ill ex-wife, grag.
Got proof?
DJS3 > How long was your girlfriend's daughter in the custody of CPS?
DJS3 > More that seven years, grag?
Don't you have the records, Dan?
DJS3 > because of all the maltreatment
DJS3 > you admitted you inflicted
G > Mostly the CAUSALITY for you is that
G > somebody had the audacity to question
G > your cultic authority!
DJS3 > I recall a lawyer on asCPS telling
DJS3 > you what you did was maltreatment.
DJS3 >
DJS3 > I happen to agree with him.
G > I see you used the term maltreatment.
DJS3 > That is the correct term, grag.
Correct for the Child Protection INDUSTRY
or correct for parents fighting them?
Sorta like how caseworkers call themselves
""Social Workers"" in every legal document, you mean?
G > That term replaced CAN as in a big snowball
G > of NEGLECT with a BB of ABUSE and
G > they then pretend that it's ALL ABUSE.
G >
G > NEGLECT is so overbroad that damn near
G > anybody could be ""FOUNDED"" for it.
G >
G > You once pretended to be a Family Rights
G > advocate, but you use the anti-parent rhetoric.
G >
G > You lump the slippery slope of NEGLECT
G > in with actual CHILD ABUSE.
G >
G > Is that something that a Family Rights
G > advocate would really do, Dan?
G >
G > How many Family Rights advocates would
G > lie or exaggerate about how good the
G > agency's case is against somebody?
DJS3 > No exaggeration necessary, grag.
DJS3 > Conclusion are all based on your own disturbing admissions.
G > Wait! You tried playing this in front of
G > Family Rights people in an attempt to
G > ridicule me and even though I was not
G > there to refute or rebut, NONE of them
G > fell for your puke and it actually BACKFIRED
G > on you MONTHS before I had any idea
G > it took place. Family Rights people asked
G > what is wrong with you!
G > You claimed yours is the ONLY way to win against CPS.
DJS3 > Disproving the allegation is the way to
DJS3 > prove the children weren't maltreated.
G > Is that really how the burden of proof works, Dan?
G > Guilty until proven innocent, Dan?
DJS3 > What is your experience with CPS, grag?
G > Is THAT why you argued so much against
G > the CONSTITUTIONAL DEFENSE, Dan?
DJS3 > No.
G > How do you prove a negative?
G > When the gyno finds nothing, the kid never
G > claims any sex or fondling, yet the caseworkers
G > (serrupticiously) mutter that the child still
G > could have been fondled, you don't see any
G > reason to invoke the US Constitution, right Dan?
DJS3 > Did you "invoke" the US Constitution in your case, grag?
The Judge said "That's for another court."
G > You also claimed that Kane is not Donald Lewis Fisher
G > a retired Oregon CPS caseworker living in Carson, WA.
DJS3 > Kane wasn't a CPS case worker.
G > He posted to usenet back in 1998 from
G > HIS state agency internet account!
G >
G > And ran the identical SHILL scam
G > to try to sell himself as an adoption
G > consultant, at least twice, a YEAR apart!
DJS3 > An adoption consultant who wasn't a CPS case worker.
When have caseworkers ever called themselves that?
He called himself other euphamisms for caseworker.
G > Commonplace on usenet NOW, but this
G > little con game was not as easily
G > recognized back in 1998.
DJS3 > Which "con game?"
He had a sock or shill account post a request for
help and then TA DA, our hero came ot the rescue!
The sock shill posts a message posing
as a bi-racial couple seeking to adopt a
multi-racial baby. Then TADA! Our hero
the ""Adoption Consultant"" advertises
his services.
It only stood out as a scam when it
repeated more than a year later using
the identical story, identical sock and
the identical answering account from
Donald.
DJS3 > on your girlfriend's
G > fiance'
DJS3 > Lisa Watkins only became your fiance'
DJS3 > AFTER her daughter was removed by
DJS3 > the authorities in Iowa.
G > On what are you basing this statement?
DJS3 > Information you posted, grag.
Got a LINK then?
G > And are you talking about the physical
G > removal for THREE WEEKS with no
G > court authority?
G >
G > Or the official legal ""removal"" three
G > weeks later?
DJS3 > The initial removal, which was done
DJS3 > with Lisa Watkins permission.
That would be quite a trick since she wasn't home!
As I thought, you just make stuff up!
DJS3 > seven year old daughter.
G > You had 20+ investigations and 5 of them were founded.
G > According to YOU, one of the Founded's was for CHILD SEXUAL ABUSE.
DJS3 > And every founded was reversed to unfounded because
DJS3 > there was never any maltreatment of any kind.
G > Tacit admission with "spin".
G > You DID say this, RIGHT?
Feb 2002
"I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93." - Dan Sullivan
http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea&usg=AFQjCNECy0XezJzAEcvXC-FrFUm2wklcyw
G > You said you "have" no founded reports.
G > You physically threw the reports away, right Dan?
G > Just so you could say you don't "have" them?
DJS3 > I have all my records, grag.
G > I LOVE your ""strategic"" word games.
G >
G > I remember how you LIED when you said you
G > weren't kicked out of FightCPS or notified
G > that you were. When the owner and a
G > moderator showed up to say that you WERE,
G > you started to argue about the meaning of an
G > e-mail you were sent NOTIFYING you that
G > you were expelled for abuses. Suddenly you
G > had an e-mail that you had previously
G > denied even receiving, and you were
G > arguing the MEANING or validity of it!
DJS3 > You've got the information all wrong, as usual, grag.
G > Should I LINK and repost the old messages, Dan?
G > But your very acknowledgement of it
G > proved that you LIED.
G >
G > I believe you were FOUNDED 5 times
G > and worse, but I do not believe that you
G > got 5 FOUNDEDS reversed.
DJS3 > You can believe anything you want, grag.
G > You are both selective in your revelations and dishonest.
DJS3 > You haven't the brains of cow flop, grag.
G > You made several babies with a
G > freakin' mental case over YEARS.
G >
G > You KNEW she was a freakin' mental
G > case before you made babies with her.
G >
G > How did you meet your psycho ex-wife, Dan?
G >
G > Were you both in the same locked psycho ward?
G >
G > Is your current wife a mental case also?
G > How many babies did you make with the
G > freakin' mental case and how many with Susan?
G > I only ask because YOU claimed that the little
G > girl in your Puppet Bear Child Sexual Abuse
G > FINDING was 3 in 1993 by your statements
G > yet she does not show up on public records
G > and KLS shows up as 26 years old in 2009.
DJS3 > What does that tell you, grag?
G > That you were FOUNDED in 1993 for CSA of a 10 year old..
DJS3 > You are WRONG, as usual, grag.
Not until you explain why your 26 year old daughter
KLS shows up on public records while your 19 year
old daughter doesn't.
G > Was your sexual abuse victim actually 10 year old, Dan?
G > Why is there no 19 year old showing up on public records, Dan?
DJS3 > I'm sure there are millions of 19 year olds on public records,
grag.
But not your daughter who you said was 3 in 1993 and said:
Feb 2002 "My daddy touched me with the puppet bear in the toilet."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
April 2004 "My daddy touched me with the puppet bear in the toilet."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/d15f8e338226b780
July 2007 "My daddy touches me with the puppet bear in the toilet."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.foster-parents/msg/2d04c26b08f9f2b9
You said she was 3 when this investigation FOUNDED
you for Child Sexual Abuse in 1993!
Feb 2002
"I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93." - Dan Sullivan
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
Feb 2002
'The "credible evidence" was my (3 yo) daughter's statement that "My
daddy touches me with the puppet bear in the toilet." '
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
Greegor
DJS3 > lost at an Administrative Review.
Got proof?
DJS3 > After their petition was thrown out of court.
DJS3 > After the CPS case worker was forced to resign.
Got proof?
DJS3 > And every founded CPS report ever made
DJS3 > against me was ultimately unfounded.
Ultimately? Got proof?
KRP > I LOVE IT when DANNY tries to deny his LONG child abuse history,
DJS3 > My child abuse history is nothing but WINS against CPS.
Got proof?
Feb 2002
Dan Sullivan wrote "I was founded for SA of my daughter back in '93."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
Feb 2002 Dan Sullivan wrote 'The "credible evidence" was my (3 yo)
daughter's statement that "My daddy touches me with the puppet bear in
the toilet." '
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
How could KLS have been 3 in 1993 when
she lists publicly as being 25 now?
Feb 2002 Dan Sullivan wrote
"My daddy touched me with the puppet bear in the toilet."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/52b49e5611d619ea
April 2004 Dan Sullivan wrote
"My daddy touched me with the puppet bear in the toilet."
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/d15f8e338226b780
July 2007 Dan Sullivan wrote
Greegor
Spanked kids ‘do better in life’
By ANI January 3rd, 2010
LONDON - Here’s a shocker: Young kids who are smacked by their parents
grow up to be more successful than children who’re never spanked at
all, claims a new study.
Lead researcher Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin
College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said: “I think of spanking as a
dangerous tool, but there are times when there is a job big enough for
a dangerous tool. You just don’t use it for all your jobs.”
In the study, researchers found that children smacked up to the age of
six were likely as teenagers to perform better at school and were more
likely to carry out volunteer work and to want to go to university
than their peers who had never been physically disciplined, reports
The Times.
Only those children who continued to be smacked into adolescence
showed clear behavioural problems, the study claimed.
The study was based on 2,600 people, of whom about a quarter had never
been physically chastised.
Welcoming Gunnoe’s findings, Aric Sigman, a psychologist and author of
The Spoilt Generation: Why Restoring Authority will Make our Children
and Society Happier, said: “The idea that smacking and violence are on
a continuum is a bizarre and fetishised view of what punishment or
smacking is for most parents.
“If it’s done judiciously by a parent who is normally affectionate and
sensitive to their child, our society should not be up in arms about
that. Parents should be trusted to distinguish this from a punch in
the face.” (ANI)
Spanking found to have negative effects on low-income toddlers
Ani September 16th, 2009
WASHINGTON - Spanking negatively affects the behaviour of toddlers in
low-income families, according to a new study.
Published in the journal Child Development, the longitudinal study
looked at how low-income parents discipline their young children.
It showed that spanking 1-year-olds leads to more aggressive
behaviours and less sophisticated cognitive development in the next
two years.
Verbal punishment, however, was not found to be associated with such
effects, especially when it was accompanied by emotional support from
mothers.
Besides, 1-year-olds’ fussiness predicted spanking and verbal
punishment at ages 1, 2, and 3.
The study explored whether mothers’ behaviours lead to problematic
behaviour in children, whether children’s challenging behaviours
elicit harsher discipline, or both.
It looked at more than 2,500 exclusively low-income White, African
American, and Mexican-American mothers and their young children,
interviewing and observing them at home when the children were 1, 2,
and 3 years old.
All participants’ family incomes were at or below the federal poverty
level.
Using their own interpretations of spanking, mothers reported how
often anyone in the home had spanked their children in the past week.
The study also looked at how often mothers verbally punished-scolded,
yelled, or made negative comments-their children.
It showed that African American children were spanked and verbally
punished significantly more than the other children in the study.
The authors speculated that that might be due to cultural factors,
such as belief in the importance of children’s respect for elders and
in the value of physical discipline to instil that respect.
Moreover, some African American mothers said that in preparing their
children for a harsh, physically dangerous, and racially
discriminating world, there was little room for error in their
childrearing.
The study also shed light on information about the effects of such
types of discipline.
“Our findings clearly indicate that spanking affects children’s
development,” said Lisa J. Berlin, research scientist at the Center
for Child and Family Policy at Duke University and the study’s lead
author.
Specifically, children who were spanked more often at 1 behaved more
aggressively when they were 2, and had lower scores on tests measuring
thinking skills when they were 3.
Similar findings were made even after taking into consideration such
family characteristics as mothers’ race and ethnicity, age, and
education; family income and structure; and the children’s gender.
The study also found that children who were more aggressive at age 2,
and had lower cognitive development scores at ages 1 and 2, were not
spanked more at ages 2 and 3.
“So the mothers’ behaviours look more influential than the
children’s,” said Berlin.
Unlike spanking, however, verbal punishment alone didn’t affect either
children’s aggression or their cognitive development.
Interestingly, when verbal punishment was accompanied by emotional
support from moms, the children did better on the tests of cognitive
ability. (ANI)
http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/284967
US study says smacking kids helps them
Jan 3, 2010 By Paul Wallis.
Smacking leads to happier kids, according to a new US study.
Ironically, it took this long to find enough people who hadn’t been
smacked to do the study. Now, a US study says that smacking into
adolescence actually helps.
Most parents resent the “no smacking” edicts from a supposedly too-PC
professional lobby. The fact that there are obvious limits to smacking
and physical discipline, at least for sane parents, never seems to get
mentioned. The fact that the “no smacking” approach has done nothing
to stem child bashings by the lunatic fringe hasn’t had a lot of
traction, either.
The no-smack concept, ironically, came from an anti-violence
perspective, but was effectively translated into a no-discipline motif
by some flat footed over the top PC publicity a few decades back which
managed to miss its own point very effectively.
The original idea of the no-smack regime was to reduce the sort of
semi-psycho, overdone approach, which was actually dangerous. A smack
on the bottom is harmless. A smack on the head can do real damage,
particularly to a young child.
The oppressive hyper discipline of the past was no joke, as many will
remember. Bruised and sore kids were no myth, and over-disciplined
kids were famous for lying their heads off. Those who perceived their
parents as actually hostile were definitely not considered to be well
served by that sort of treatment. All they learned was to avoid
discipline, and later, self-discipline. Most people did stop well
short of that sort of actual abuse, and stuck to the traditional
“don’t do that” form of smack, tapering off as the kids grew up.
The no-smack approach was generally distrusted, and resented as an
intrusion when it began. The overall reaction was a groan of
disbelief. It’s also a matter of opinion whether it’s really taken
hold. “Reason with the child” is a mixed blessing, after the event,
and some parents believe that a no-risk option for getting away with
murder isn’t the right message to send to the average two year old.
Most people have seen the screaming, undisciplined brat who’s
obviously not under any sort of control. That may not be typical of
the no-smack ethos, and certainly not the intent, but they really are
out of control. They’re a risk to themselves, and likely to do
staggeringly stupid things, simply because they can.
The parents receive the flak. The stony disapproval of an entire mall
is a thing to see, particularly from other parents, who can make their
point without saying a word. That hasn’t done a lot to boost the image
of the no-smack idea.
Nor has the level of actual violence been affected. The pitiful tales
of kids who’ve been killed regularly haunt the news. One woman
actually put her kid in an oven, and turned it on. It’s doubtful that
the sage philosophical arguments actually penetrate situations like
that. It’s unrealistic to assume they do, and the no-smack lobby has
yet to address that issue.
Prof. Marjorie Gunnoe, of Calvin University, Grand Rapids, Michigan,
did a study of 2600 people, including about 25% who’d never received
physical chastisement. The press coverage of this is sparse, and it
looks like there’s a paper in the works, which has reduced the output
in the releases, but Prof. Gunnoe has stated that the data from her
study simply doesn’t support the no-smack concept.
Her research states that children smacked up to the age of six were
likely to do better, in fact, at school, and more likely to do
volunteer work, want go to university, and other signs of higher
participatory involvements.
Gunnoe isn’t saying smacking is an answer. She considers it a
“dangerous tool”, which may indicate she started her research with
more than a few reservations of her own. She also said that it’s not
appropriate for all situations.
The demographics of this issue are pretty clear. The smacked
generations don’t buy the no-smack approach. They generally seem to
think it reduces parental options, and doesn’t do a lot for
discipline. The no-smack side equates smacking with violence against
children, and hasn’t made much distinction between a smack on the
bottom and a funeral.
Whatever the outcome, there's another issue: Child psychology might
want to look at providing clearer arguments for its cases. As a
communications exercise, no-smack has been a classic case of the
single message getting amplified into a sort of jihad against parental
discipline. The arguments have been polarized, not productive. This
has been a situation where unqualified, over simplified statements
have been the default version of ideas for public consumption, and
that’s helped create an almost purely reactive environment for the
concept. Some things should never be dumbed down, and raising kids is
definitely the best place to start.
freedom
>http://blog.taragana.com/e/2010/01/03/spanked-kids-do-better-in-life-76009=
/
>
>Spanked kids =91do better in life=92
>
>By ANI January 3rd, 2010
>grow up to be more successful than children who=92re never spanked at
>all, claims a new study.
>Lead researcher Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin
What does the story say about girls whose mothers' deviant boyfriends watch=
them take cold showers?
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
<about...@aboutISkenApangbornFRAUD.com> wrote:
>On Wed, 6 Jan 2010, Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>http://blog.taragana.com/e/2010/01/03/spanked-kids-do-better-in-life-76009=
>
>>
>>Spanked kids do better in life
>>
>>By ANI January 3rd, 2010
>>LONDON - Here' a shocker: Young kids who are smacked by their parents
>>grow up to be more successful than children who are never spanked at
>>all, claims a new study.
>>Lead researcher Marjorie Gunnoe, professor of psychology at Calvin
>>College in Grand Rapids, Michigan, said: I think of spanking as a
>
>What does the story say about girls whose mothers' deviant boyfriends watch
>them take cold showers?
It would be of interest to learn how Lisa's daughter has
developed, emotionally, given the physical, emotional, mental and
sexual abuse Greg's BRAGGED about inflicting upon her.
If she ends up a burden on society, the blame may be accurately
laid at Greg's feet.
Not that he would accept responsibility. He's UNABLE to do so.
A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott "Piggly
Wiggly" Hanson (either directly or through the same standards he
DEMANDS be held to others):
Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, by
attacking my first wife (deceased).
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead
Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child abuser:
"Of course."
"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child
abuser
" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson
Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
triumphantly.
--a true story
As of Sunday, Nov. 29, 2009:
Financials
Title: STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREG SCOTT
Case: 06571 AGCR015216 (LINN)
Citation Number:
Summary Orig Paid Due
COSTS 9200.00 850.00 8350.00
FINE 500.00 500.00 0.00
SURCHARGE 150.00 150.00 0.00
RESTITUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00
OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00
$9850.00 $1500.00 $8350.00
Yes, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson still owes over
$8000.00 related to his convictions for BEATING his ex-wife.
"I am now a "founded" child abuser for making a
7 year old take a fast cold shower."
-- Gregory Scot "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson bragging in MID
<cu6H6.14493$3c6.3...@news1.elmhst1.il.home.com>
In Message-ID:
<c7be6a38-8d1d-4c0a...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson admitted that by his standards,
he RAPED his ex-wife. The same ex-wife he was twice convicted for
BEATING.
In Message-ID:
<8db2eada-0546-4c1a...@n38g2000yqf.googlegroups.com>
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson admits that his use and abuse of
illegal drugs forced him to LIE about the existence of certain
photographs.
Greegor
Kent Wills AKA Kent Bradley Wills AKA Compuelf AKA (various) DOB Jan 8
1969 Two Felony Garage Burglar used teen as accomplice
Kent routinely says opponents are
A. Drunks
B. Druggies
C. Mentally Ill
D. Already conceded to Kent's argument
E. Question was already asked and answered ( ? )
It's as if Kent is an automation that is WAY too simple.
Kent's Appeal
IN PRINTED LAW BOOKS
West's North Western Reporter
Second Series
A Unit of the National Reporter System
Volume 696 N.W.2d
Cite as 696 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 2005)
Kent's Appeal
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
http://www.assess.co.polk.ia.us/cgi-bin/seephoto/photosize.cgi?gp=802415452029&size=Large
Notice that KENT made claims re sale of 202 NW College apartment
building
That's geoparcel gp=802415452029
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
( Step by step instructions elsewhere with name Kent B Wills )
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
http://www.rogersgis.com/zoom/Residential_Development/indexfull.htm
http://www.arcountydata.com/county.asp?county=Benton
TWO of Kent Wills' usenet newsgroup identities:
Do It Yourself Instructions to look up Kent's record
Iowa Department of Corrections records for Kent
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
Name Kent Bradley Wills [ As Collected Sept 13, 2009 ]
Offender Number 1155768
Sex M
Birth Date 01/08/1969
Age 40
Location
Offense
County Of Commitment
Commitment Date
Duration
TDD/SDD *
* TDD = Tentative Discharge Date
* SDD = Supervision Discharge Date
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 12/16/2008
Probation C Felony Polk 12/16/2008
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 11/25/2003
IN PRINTED LAW BOOKS
West's North Western Reporter
Second Series
A Unit of the National Reporter System
Volume 696 N.W.2d
Cite as 696 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 2005)
Kent's Appeal
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 31 / 04-0202
Filed May 6, 2005
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
KENT BRADLEY WILLS,
Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk
County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.
Defendant appeals claiming ineffective
assistance of counsel. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender,
and Tricia Johnston, Assistant State
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin
Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, John P.
Sarcone, County Attorney, and John Judisch,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
WIGGINS, Justice.
Kent Wills appeals his conviction for
second-degree burglary contending that
an attached garage is a separate occupied
structure from that of the living quarters
of the residence. In this appeal, we must
determine whether trial counsel was
ineffective for (1) failing to move for
judgment of acquittal on the basis there
was insufficient evidence to convict Wills
of second-degree burglary when he entered
an attached garage of a residence when no
persons were present in the garage, but
when persons were present in the living
quarters; and (2) failing to object to a
jury instruction based on this same
argument. Because we find there was no
legal basis for the motion for judgment
of acquittal or the objection to the jury
instruction, Wills' trial counsel was not
ineffective. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Around 1 a.m., an Ankeny resident called
the local police to report that a car
alarm sounded in the resident's
neighborhood. The city dispatched a police
officer to the location. Observing nothing
unusual, the officer left the area, only
to be stopped a couple of blocks later
by a person who informed the officer he
had witnessed someone running from the
area of the car alarm. As the officer
started driving back to the area of the
car alarm, he noticed a person walking
on the sidewalk. The officer asked the
person, a minor, if he had noticed anybody
running from the area. The minor answered
that he had not. While the officer and
another officer were speaking to the minor,
another resident of the neighborhood
arrived in her car and informed the
officers that she had observed two people,
one of whom was heavy set with a blinking
light on his back pocket, walking in the
area of her neighbor's residence. She
observed the heavier-set individual, later
identified as Wills, enter her neighbor's
attached garage through an unlocked service
door. She further observed a smaller
individual standing by a van parked in
the neighbor's driveway.
The officers eventually let the minor leave
even though they found a large amount of
coins, a flashlight, and an electronic
pocket organizer in his pockets. After
releasing the minor, the police officers
drove to the residence where the neighbor
observed the two suspicious people and
woke the owner. The owner, his wife,
and two daughters were in the residence
sleeping at the time. After a search
of his vehicles, the owner discovered
change and an electronic pocket organizer
were missing from the vehicles. The
owner's daughter reported a diamond ring
and some change were missing from her
vehicle. The officers then contacted
the minor's parents, who informed the
officers the minor was with Wills. After
the officers questioned the minor again,
he admitted his involvement in the theft
and implicated Wills in the burglary.
Although Wills denied involvement in the
burglary, the officers arrested him.
The State filed a trial information
charging Wills with second-degree
burglary. The State later amended the
information to include two additional
charges of burglary in the third degree
and using a juvenile to commit an
indictable offense.
The jury returned a verdict finding Wills
guilty of the crimes of burglary in the
second degree, burglary in the third
degree, and using a juvenile to commit
an indictable offense. Wills appeals his
conviction for second-degree burglary
claiming ineffective assistance of
counsel.
II. Scope of Review.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
are derived from the Sixth Amendment of the
United States Constitution. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-86, 104 S.
Ct. 2052, 2063-64, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 691-93
(1984). Our review for a claim involving
violations of the Constitution is de novo.
State v. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d 95, 100
(Iowa 2004). We normally preserve
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
for postconviction relief actions. State
v. Carter, 602 N.W. 2d 818, 820 (Iowa 1999).
However, we will address such claims on
direct appeal when the record is sufficient
to permit a ruling. State v. Artzer,
609 N.W.2d 526, 531 (Iowa 2000). The
appellate record in the present case is
sufficient to allow us to address Wills'
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
on direct appeal.
In order for a defendant to succeed on a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
the defendant must prove: (1) counsel
failed to perform an essential duty and
(2) prejudice resulted. Id. Prejudice
results when "there is a reasonable
probability that, but for the counsel's
unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different."
State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 378
(Iowa 1998) (quoting Strickland, 466
U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068,
80 L. Ed. 2d at 698). Wills' arguments
also raise issues of statutory
interpretation, which we review for
correction of errors at law. State v.
Wolford Corp., 689 N.W.2d 471, 473 (Iowa 2004).
III. Analysis.
To find Wills guilty of burglary in the
second degree, the State had to prove
Wills perpetrated a burglary "in or
upon an occupied structure in which one
or more persons are present . . . ." Iowa
Code § 713.5(2) (2003) (emphasis added).
In this appeal, Wills first contends his
trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to move for a judgment of acquittal on
the basis there was insufficient evidence
to support a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage, there were persons
present in or upon the occupied structure.
Wills concedes the garage was an occupied
structure, but argues the living quarters
and the attached garage are separate and
independent occupied structures; therefore,
the jury could not have found there were
people present in the attached garage
at the time of the burglary.
The Code defines an "occupied structure" as:
[A]ny building, structure, appurtenances
to buildings and structures, land, water
or air vehicle, or similar place adapted
for overnight accommodation of persons,
or occupied by persons for the purpose of
carrying on business or other activity
therein, or for the storage or safekeeping
of anything of value. Such a structure
is an "occupied structure" whether or not
a person is actually present.
Id. § 702.12.
Wills relies on State v. Smothers, 590
N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 1999), to argue the
garage and the living quarters are separate
and independent occupied structures. In
Smothers, two separate and distinct
businesses connected by interior fire doors
were operated in the same structure.
590 N.W.2d at 723. We held the defendant
committed two burglaries by entering each
business because "[t]he facility's
construction history and physical make-up
demonstrate that the portions are
independent working units which constitute
'[a] combination of materials to form a
construction for occupancy [or] use.'" Id.
Smothers is not at odds with the present
case because the living quarters and the
garage are not separate or independent
units of the residence.
Our review of the record reveals the garage
in question was a three-car attached garage
separated from the living quarters by a
door. The same roof covered the garage as
the rest of the residence. The living
quarters surrounded the garage on two sides.
It was structurally no different from any
other room in the residence.
The garage was a functional part of the
residence. On the night of the incident,
the door was unlocked. The owner of the
residence used two stalls in the garage to
park the family vehicles. The owner used
the third stall for his motorcycle. As
such, the garage and the living quarters
are a single "structure" or "building"
functioning as an integral part of the
family residence. Thus, the residence
including the garage is a single
"occupied structure" under section 702.12.
See, e.g., People v. Ingram, 48 Cal. Rptr.
2d 256 (Ct. App.1995) (holding defendant's
entry into an attached garage constituted
first-degree burglary because the garage
was attached to the house; therefore,
burglary of the garage was burglary of
an inhabited dwelling house); People v.
Cunningham, 637 N.E.2d 1247, 1252 (Ill.
App. Ct. 1994) (holding "ordinarily an
attached garage is a 'dwelling' because
it is part of the structure in which
the owner or occupant lives");
State v. Lara, 587 P.2d 52, 53
(N.M. Ct. App. 1978) (holding "burglary
of the [attached] garage was burglary of
the dwelling house because the garage was
a part of the structure used as living
quarters"); People v. Green, 141 A.D.2d
760, 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) (holding
"[s]ince the garage in the present case
was structurally part of a building
which was used for overnight lodging of
various persons, it must be considered
as part of a dwelling"); White v. State,
630 S.W. 2d 340, 342 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982)
(holding an attached garage under the
same roof as the home would be considered
a habitation within the purview of the
penal code because the garage is a
structure appurtenant to and connected
to the house); State v. Murbach, 843 P.
2d 551, 553 (Wash. Ct. App 1993)
(holding the definition of a dwelling
under Washington's burglary statute
included an attached garage).
Had Wills' trial counsel moved for a
judgment of acquittal on the basis there
was insufficient evidence to support
a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage there were no persons
present in or upon the occupied
structure, it would have been overruled
by the court because the owner and his
family were present in the residence at
the time of the burglary.
Wills also claims his counsel was
ineffective for failing to object to
the jury instruction used by the district
court on the same ground; that the
living quarters were a separate and
independent occupied structure from the
attached garage. The instruction as
given stated:
The State must prove all of the following
elements of Burglary in the Second
Degree as to Count I:
1. On or about the 12th day of August,
2003, the defendant or someone he aided
and abetted broke into or entered the
residence at . . . .
2. The residence at . . . was an occupied
structure as defined in Instruction No. 29.
3. The defendant or the person he aided
and abetted did not have permission or
authority to break into the residence at ...
4. The defendant or the person he aided
and abetted did so with the specific
intent to commit a theft therein.
5. During the incident persons were present
in or upon the occupied structure.
If the State has proved all of the elements,
the defendant is guilty of Burglary in the
Second Degree. If the State has failed to prove
any of the elements, the defendant is not
guilty of Burglary in the Second Degree and
you will then consider the charge of
Attempted Burglary in the Second Degree
explained in Instruction No. 21.
(Emphasis added.)
Wills' claim is without merit. As we have
discussed, the residence is the one and
only "occupied structure" under the facts
of this case. Had Wills' trial counsel
made this objection to the instruction,
it would have been overruled.
Therefore, Wills' trial counsel is not
ineffective for failing to move
for a judgment of acquittal or objecting
to the instruction because there was no
legal basis for the motion or objection.
See State v. Hochmuth, 585 N.W.2d 234,
238 (Iowa 1998) (holding trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise an
issue that has no merit).
IV. Disposition.
We affirm the judgment of the district
court because Wills' trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise
meritless issues.
AFFIRMED.
---------------------------------
Pay close attention to past owners of 202 NW College Ave.
Kent made affirmative claims about the property online.
Kent's folks sold it in 1994 while Kent lived there!
On 03/30/1999 Sweeney's filed on Kent for UNPAID RENT!
GeoParcel 8024-15-452-029 District/Parcel 181/00392-048-000
[ As Collected Sept 13, 2009 ]
Seller: WILLS, FRED A. & JANET R.
Buyer: THE SWEENEY REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST
04/26/1994 135,000 D/Deed 7010/188
-
Seller: SHELDAHL, ERIC A.
Buyer: WILLS, FRED
01/02/1990 130,500 D/Deed 6189/972
A Larger photo:
http://www.assess.co.polk.ia.us/cgi-bin/seephoto/photosize.cgi?gp=802415452029&size=Large
Notice that name SWEENEY above?
Check this out!
Iowa Courts Docket and Disposition web site
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
Iowa Courts
Online Search
< Start A Case Search Here! > click
Iowa Courts Online Search
Search Selection
Under Trial Court < click on Case Search >
Wills Kent B
02401 ESPR015146 INA J WILLS ESTATE
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT ******
05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT
05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRES VS KENT
05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRES VS KENT
05771 STAN201670 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 STAN210929 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
A list of case numbers will be presented.
Click on the SWEENEY case, 4th one down.
Under the "Filings" tab:
JUDGEMENT DEFAULT BRANDT GREGORY D 08/25/1999 09/01/1999 09/01/1999
Comments: $156.25 7.244% FROM 03/30/99
COMPUTER GENERATED NOTICE 05/11/1999 05/11/1999 05/11/1999
Comments: Notice of Proof of Claim
RETURN OF ORIGINAL NOTICE 04/21/1999 04/23/1999 04/23/1999
Comments: 4/10/99 KENT PERS
37.60
VERIFICATION OF ACCT HAS BEEN FILED 03/30/1999 03/30/1999
03/30/1999
SMALL CLAIMS ORIGINAL NOTICE SWEENEY RENTALS 03/30/1999 03/30/1999
03/30/1999
Comments: UNPAID RENT
Under the "Financial" Tab:
Summary Orig Paid Due
COSTS 98.60 31.00 67.60
FINE 0.00 0.00 0.00
SURCHARGE 0.00 0.00 0.00
RESTITUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00
OTHER 238.46 0.00 238.46
-----------
$337.06 $31.00 $306.06
SUPPORT/ALIMONY N/A 0.00 N/A
----------------------------------------
Kent's 2000 Felony, first of TWO in Iowa
WILLS, KENT BRADLEY 05771 FECR145250 (POLK)
01/24/2000 Offense Date THEFT 2ND DEGREE - 1978 (FELD) WITHDRAWN
01/24/2000 Offense Date THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
03/07/2000 DEFERRED JUDGMENT (At that time) Sentence: 365 Day(s)
03/07/2000 PROBATION INFORMAL; 8/07/01-TRNFRD TO FORMAL 365 Day(s)
03/07/2000 COMMUNITY SERVICE 50 Hour(s)
03/07/2000 REFERRED TO OTHER AGENCY 1ST TIME OFFENDER CLASS
08/07/2001 JAIL PROB HRG 11 Day(s)
08/07/2001 JAIL PROB HRG 11 Day(s) TIME SERVED
08/07/2001 PROBATION EXTENDED PROB HRG
04/16/2002 PROBATION EXTENDED TO 08/06/03
04/16/2002 IMPOSED 7 Day(s)
04/16/2002 OTHER/MISCELLANEOUS PROB HRG 6 Day(s)
04/16/2002 DETENTION PROB HRG 6 Day(s)
08/07/2003 PRIOR ORDERS CONTINUED PROB EXTENDED UNTIL 8-06-04
11/26/2003 REVOKED PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL
11/26/2003 PLACEMENT HRG PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL120 Day(s)
11/26/2003 SUSPEND PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; TIME SERVED 106 Day(s)
11/26/2003 COMMUNITY CORR PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL 14 Day(s)
( When Kent's second Felony revoked the rest of his Probation.)
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
Iowa Courts
Online Search
< Start A Case Search Here! > click
Iowa Courts Online Search
Search Selection
Under Trial Court < click on Case Search >
Wills Kent B
02401 ESPR015146 INA J WILLS ESTATE
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT ******
05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT
05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRES VS KENT
05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRES VS KENT
05771 STAN201670 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 STAN210929 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
A list of case numbers will be presented.
Click on case FECR145250, 2nd one down.
Under the "[Criminal Charges/Disposition]" tab:
Charges, Dispositions, Sentences
Title: STATE VS KENT B WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR145250 (POLK)
Citation Number:
Defendant: WILLS, KENT BRADLEY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 01 Charge
Charge:
714.2(2) Description: THEFT 2ND DEGREE - 1978 (FELD)
Offense Date: 01/24/2000 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0386367-01
Adjudication
Charge:
714.2(2) Description: THEFT 2ND DEGREE - 1978 (FELD)
Adj.:
DNU-WITHDRAWN Adj.Date: 03/07/2000
Adj.Judge:
WILSON, ROBERT D
Comments: AMENDED TI FILED
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(2) Description: THEFT 2ND DEGREE - 1978 (FELD)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: WITHDRAWN
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 02 Charge
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Offense Date: 01/24/2000 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0386367-02
Adjudication
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Adj.:
DEFERRED Adj.Date: 03/07/2000
Adj.Judge:
WILSON, ROBERT D
Comments:
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: DEFERRED JUDGMENT
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 365 Day(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 365 Day(s)
Comment:
INFORMAL;8/07/01-TRNFRD TO FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 50 Hour(s)
Comment:
TO BE DETERMINED BY PROBATION
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: REFERRED TO OTHER AGENCY
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
1ST TIME OFFENDER CLASS
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
08/07/2001 Sentence: JAIL
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: JACOBS, LOUISE M
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 11 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
08/07/2001 Sentence: TIME SERVED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: JACOBS, LOUISE M
Facility Type:
J Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 11 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
08/07/2001 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: JACOBS, LOUISE M
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROB HRG-4/16/02-PROBATION EXTENDED TO 08/06/03
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
04/16/2002 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: COPPOLA, CAROL L
Facility Type:
J Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 7 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
04/16/2002 Sentence: OTHER/MISCELLANEOUS
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: COPPOLA, CAROL L
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 6 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
04/16/2002 Sentence: DETENTION
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: COPPOLA, CAROL L
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 6 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
08/07/2003 Sentence: PRIOR ORDERS CONTINUED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: MCGHEE, ODELL
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROB EXTENDED UNTIL 8-06-04
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
11/26/2003 Sentence: REVOKED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: SMITH, JOE E
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
11/26/2003 Sentence: PLACEMENT
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: SMITH, JOE E
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 120 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
11/26/2003 Sentence: SUSPEND
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: SMITH, JOE E
Facility Type:
J Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 106 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; TIME SERVED
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
11/26/2003 Sentence: COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: SMITH, JOE E
Facility Type:
J Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 14 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL
---------------------------------------
Charges, Dispositions, Sentences
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
Citation Number:
Count 01
08/12/2003 Offense Date BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
12/17/2003 Adj.Date: GUILTY
01/16/2004 Sentence 10 Year(s) SUSPENDED PRISON
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION 2 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FT DSM FACILITY-MAX
BENEFITS
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE 150 Hour(s)
12/17/2003 Sentence: JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
Count 02
08/12/2003 Offense BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR VEHICLE
(AGMS)
12/17/2003 GUILTY
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON Duration: 2 Year(s) SUSPENDED PRISON
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION Duration: 2 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FT DSM FACILITY-MAX
BENEFITS
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE Duration: 150 Hour(s)
12/17/2003 Sentence: JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/06/09
Count 03
08/12/2003 USING JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE OFFENSE(FELC)709A.6
(2)
12/17/2003 GUILTY
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON Duration: 10 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON 10 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION 2 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FT DSM FACILITY-MAX
BENEFITS
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE 150 Hour(s)
12/17/2003 Sentence: JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
Charges, Dispositions, Sentences
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
Citation Number:
Count 01 Charge
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Offense Date: 08/12/2003 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0668408-01
Adjudication
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Adj.:
DNU-GUILTY Adj.Date: 12/17/2003
Adj.Judge:
HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Comments: GUILTY
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 150 Hour(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
12/17/2003 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 02 Charge
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Offense Date: 08/12/2003 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0668408-02
Adjudication
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Adj.:
DNU-GUILTY Adj.Date: 12/17/2003
Adj.Judge:
HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Comments: GUILTY
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 150 Hour(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
12/17/2003 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/06/09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 03 Charge
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Offense Date: 08/12/2003 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0668408-03
Adjudication
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Adj.:
DNU-GUILTY Adj.Date: 12/17/2003
Adj.Judge:
HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Comments: GUILTY
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 150 Hour(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
12/17/2003 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
-------------------------------------
Filings
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
ORDER OF DISCHARGE OVROM ELIZA 12/16/2008 12/16/2008 12/16/2008
Comments: FROM PROBATION
OTHER EVENT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 12/16/2008 12/16/2008
12/16/2008
Comments: FIELD DISCHARGE REPORT
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 12/16/2008 12/16/2008 12/16/2008
Comments: REVOCATION HEARING SET FOR 1/07/2009 IS CANCELLED
DEFENDANT HAS NOT PAID IN FULL FINANCIAL
OBLIGATIONS
ORDER FOR PROBATION REVOCATION HEARING MOISAN CYNTHIA M 12/05/2008
12/05/2008 12/05/2008
Comments: ON 1/7/09 AT 9:30AM RM204
PROBATION REVOCATION 12/05/2008 12/05/2008 12/05/2008
Comments: REPORT OF VIOLATIONS FILED BY JAN HORNOCKER
FORMAL PROBATION HUTCHISON ROBERT A 01/25/2006 01/26/2006
01/26/2006
Comments: EXTENDED TO 01/16/09 OR UNTIL CONDITIONS ARE MET
COURT ORDERED PAYMENT PLAN 01/13/2006 01/13/2006 01/13/2006
OTHER ORDER HUTCHISON ROBERT A 01/11/2006 01/13/2006 01/13/2006
Comments: DEFT'S PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09; DEFT TO
COMPLETE
CONDITIONS LISTED
OTHER EVENT 09/15/2005 09/15/2005 09/15/2005
Comments: THE SUPREME COURT RETURNED FILE, PSI, 4 TRANSCRIPTS,
AND 1 ENVELOPE OF EXHIBITS
OTHER EVENT APPELLATE DEFENDER'S OFFICE 06/09/2005 06/13/2005
06/13/2005
Comments: STATEMENT OF HOURS
15.9 HOURS = $795.00
ATTORNEY - GRETA TRUMAN
OTHER EVENT CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 06/02/2005 09/15/2005
09/15/2005
Comments: BILL OF COSTS
$27.50 TAXED AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND PAYABLE
TO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
#04-0202
OTHER ORDER SUPREME COURT OF IOWA 06/02/2005 09/15/2005 09/15/2005
Comments: RE DEFT'S APPEAL CLAIMING INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL:
JUDGEMENT AFFIRMED
#04-0202
PROCEDENDO CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 06/02/2005 09/15/2005 09/15/2005
Comments: AFFIRMED
PROCEED W/DILIGENCE AS IF THERE HAD BEEN NO
APPEAL
#04-0202
COMMUNITY SERVICE 05/25/2004 05/27/2004 05/27/2004
Comments: 135 HRS COMPLETED 5/24/04
INDIGENT DEFENSE CLAIM FORM TAYLOR KAREN 05/11/2004 05/13/2004
05/13/2004
Comments: $1150
ELECTRONIC FILING
OTHER EVENT 04/26/2004 04/28/2004 04/28/2004
Comments: SUPREME COURT REC'D 1 FILE, 1 PSI ENVELOPE,
1 EXHIBIT(1 ENVELOPE DATED 1/21/04)
REC'D 4/20/04
OTHER ORDER NICKERSON DON 04/23/2004 04/27/2004 04/27/2004
Comments: THE BALANCE OF ATTNY FEE AND CC SHALL BE
CONVERTED TO 135 HRS COMM SERVICE
TO BE COMPLETED FROM FT DSM FACILITY
OR TRANSFER TO INTERSTATE COMPACT
COMMUNITY SERVICE 04/22/2004 04/23/2004 04/23/2004
Comments: 150 HRS COMPLETED
APRIL 8, 2004
OTHER EVENT 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004
Comments: RECD CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR DEFT
OTHER EVENT 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004
Comments: FILE AND PSI SENT TO THE SUPREME COURT
ONE ENVELOPE OF EXHIBITS FILED 1/21/04
SENT TO THE SUPREME COURT
OTHER EVENT 04/19/2004 04/19/2004 04/19/2004
Comments: SUP CRT RECEIVED 2 TRANSCRIPTS OF PROCEEDINGS
FILED 4/1/04 (VOL I & II)
SUP CRT 04-202
OTHER EVENT 04/06/2004 05/18/2004 05/18/2004
Comments: 2 TRANSCRIPTS FILED 4/1/04 SENT TO THE
SUPREME COURT
DNU - COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT MAXEY REBECCA 04/01/2004 04/05/2004
04/05/2004
Comments: OF PROCEEDINGS ON 12/16/03
VOLUME II
DNU - COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT MAXEY REBECCA 04/01/2004 04/05/2004
04/05/2004
Comments: OF PROCEEDINGS ON 12/15/03
VOLUME I
OTHER EVENT 03/31/2004 03/31/2004 03/31/2004
Comments: EXHIBITS RETURNED
OTHER EVENT 03/31/2004 03/31/2004 03/31/2004
Comments: ENVELOPE OF EXHIBITS CHECKED OUT TO COURT
REPORTER R.M.
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 03/29/2004 03/31/2004 03/31/2004
Comments: MOTION IS GRANTED REGARDING REVIEW OF
PAYMENT OF COURT APPOINTED ATTY FEES AND
THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER IS ORDERED TO MAKE
PAYMENT AS REQUESTED.
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 03/29/2004 03/30/2004 03/31/2004
ENTERED IN ERROR
Comments: STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER SHALL MAKE PAYMENT AS
REQUESTED.
MOTION 03/18/2004 03/19/2004 03/19/2004
Comments: TO ENLARGE TIME FOR DOCKETING FILED BY
ASSISTANT APPELLATE DEFENDER
ORDER SETTING HEARING OVROM ELIZA 03/15/2004 03/16/2004 03/16/2004
Comments: ON MOTION TO REVIEW ACTION RE:PAYMENT OF
COURT APPOINTED ATTY.
3/29/04 8:15AM RM209A
MOTION 03/15/2004 03/16/2004 03/16/2004
Comments: FOR REVIEW OF ACTION REGARDING PAYMENT
OF COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY FEES
FILED BY ATDF
OTHER EVENT 03/11/2004 03/11/2004 03/11/2004
Comments: SUPREME COURT RECVD 2 TRANSCRIPTS OF SENTENCING
ON 1/16/04 AND STATUS CONF ON 12/12/03 FILED
3/1/04
04-202
OTHER EVENT 03/09/2004 03/09/2004 03/09/2004
Comments: 2 TRANSCRIPTS FILED 3/1/04 SENT TO THE
SUPREME COURT
INDIGENT DEFENSE CLAIM FORM TAYLOR KAREN 03/09/2004 03/18/2004
03/18/2004
Comments: $1350.00 ELECTRONIC FILING
DNU - COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT HILGENBERG VIVIAN ROSE 03/01/2004
03/03/2004 03/03/2004
Comments: OF STATUS CONFERENCE ON 12/12/2003
DNU - COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT HILGENBERG VIVIAN ROSE 03/01/2004
03/03/2004 03/03/2004
Comments: OF SENTENCING ON 01/16/2004
OTHER EVENT APPELLATE DEFENDER'S OFFICE 02/26/2004 02/27/2004
02/27/2004
Comments: COMBINED CERTIFICATE
OTHER EVENT 02/24/2004 02/24/2004 02/24/2004
Comments: DOCKET ENTRIES RECEIVED BY SUPREME COURT
2-10-04; SUPREME COURT NUMBER 04-202
ORDER APPOINTING OVROM ELIZA 02/18/2004 02/19/2004 02/19/2004
Comments: ORDER GRANTING K TAYLOR TO W/D
APPELLATE COUNSEL IS APPT
OTHER APPLICATION 02/18/2004 02/19/2004 02/19/2004
Comments: TO WITHDRAW
OTHER EVENT 02/10/2004 02/10/2004 02/10/2004
Comments: DOCKET ENTRIES AND CERTIFIED COPY OF NOTICE
OF APPEAL SENT TO THE SUPREME COURT
OTHER EVENT TAYLOR KAREN A 02/09/2004 02/10/2004 02/10/2004
Comments: COURT APPOINTED BILLING
47 HOURS = $2500
OTHER EVENT TAYLOR KAREN 02/09/2004 02/10/2004 02/10/2004
ENTERED IN ERROR
Comments: COURT
NOTICE OF APPEAL TAYLOR KAREN A 02/06/2004 02/09/2004 02/09/2004
Comments: FILED BY ATDF
OTHER EVENT 01/23/2004 01/27/2004 01/27/2004
Comments: ADDENDUM TO PSI REPORT
EXHIBIT MAXEY REBECCA 01/21/2004 01/21/2004 01/21/2004
Comments: STATE'S EXHIBITS
1-$13.21; 2-$24.25 (IN VAULT); 3-LIGHT;
4&5-WRITTEN STATEMENT; 6,7,8-DIAGRAM
1 ENVELOPE & VAULT
OTHER EVENT 01/20/2004 01/26/2004 01/26/2004
Comments: VORP
VICTIM DOES NOT WANT TO VORP
NO RESTITUTION ISSUES AT THIS TIME
VICTIM DENNIS AND JAMIE WIEBEN
COURT ORDERED PAYMENT PLAN 01/20/2004 01/20/2004 01/20/2004
COURT ORDERED PAYMENT PLAN 01/16/2004 01/16/2004 01/16/2004
COURT REPORTER CERTIFICATE HILGENBERG VIVIAN ROSE 01/16/2004
01/20/2004 01/20/2004
Comments: $15.00
PRE SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT PSI 01/16/2004 01/16/2004
01/16/2004
ORDER OF DISPOSITION OVROM ELIZA 01/16/2004 01/16/2004 01/16/2004
Comments: FOUND GUILTY BY JURY/PRISON-SUSPENDED; FORMAL
PROBATION; FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS;
COMMUNITY SERVED; RESTITUTION-SUPP ORDER TO
FOLLOW; VORP; APPEAL BOND $13000 C/S
ORDER OF DISPOSITION OVROM ELIZA 01/16/2004 01/16/2004
01/16/2004
ENTERED IN ERROR
Comments: PLED GUILTY/PRISON-SUSPENDED; FORMAL
PROBATION; FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS;
COMMUNITY SERVED; RESTITUTION-SUPP ORDER TO
FOLLOW; VORP; APPEAL BOND $13000 C/S
MITTIMUS TO STATE INSTITUTION WILLS KENT BRADLEY 01/16/2004
01/16/2004 01/16/2004
Comments: **FORT DES MOINES**
RETURN OF SERVICE - OTHER POLK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 12/23/2003
12/26/2003 12/26/2003
Comments: TRANSPORT COSTS $96.24
OTHER EVENT 12/22/2003 12/23/2003 12/23/2003
Comments: DEFT'S COPY OF ORDER TO EXCEED STATE FEE
LIMITATION RETURNED UNDELIVERABLE
COURT REPORTER CERTIFICATE MAXEY REBECCA 12/17/2003 12/18/2003
12/18/2003
CRIMINAL VERDICT HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/17/2003 12/18/2003 12/18/2003
Comments: OF GUILTY TO BURGLARY 2ND, 3RD, AND USING A
JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE OFFENSE; DCS
WILL SUBMIT A PSI BY 1 WK PRIOR TO SENTENCING
DATE; PRESENTENCE CONF & SENTENCING 1-16-04
@ 8:30 AM IN RM 209A; BOND CONT
AMENDED TRIAL INFORMATION HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/17/2003 12/18/2003
12/18/2003
Comments: FILED BY JOHN JUDISCH
JURY SELECTION HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/17/2003 12/18/2003 12/18/2003
INSTRUCTIONS 12/17/2003 12/18/2003 12/18/2003
Comments: TO THE JURY AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE
OTHER ORDER HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/16/2003 12/17/2003 12/17/2003
Comments: JUV SEAN BILYEU SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE
CUSTODY OF POLK CO SHERIFF FOR THE DURATION
OF HIS REQUIRED TESTIMONY/PRESENCE IN THIS
MATTER. SEAN BILYEU SHALL REMAIN IN THE
CUSTODY OF POLK CO SHERIFF OR ANY OTHER
LOCATION (MEYER HALL) DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY
THE SHERIFF UNTIL THE POLK CO SHERIFF CAN
EXECUTE THE TIMELY TRANSPORT OF SEAN BILYEU
FROM THE CUSTODY OF THE SHERIFF TO THE ELDORA
TRAINING CENTER.
OTHER ORDER HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/16/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003
Comments: DEFT TO BE RETURNED FROM ELDORA-COTTAGE 5
BY JIM TROTTER, INVESTIGATOR/CTY ATTY'S
OFFICE; DEFT CAN BE PRESENT AT HIS TESTIMONY
ON 12-16-03
OTHER ORDER HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/15/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003
Comments: ATDF IS PERMITTED TO EXCEED GUIDELINE FOR
CT APPT ATTY IN THIS MATTER AND THAT THIS
ORDER SHALL INCLUED ALL FEES INCURRED AS OF
THE DATE OF THIS ORDER.
APPLICATION TO EXCEED FEES 12/15/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003
COURT REPORTER CERTIFICATE HILGENBERG VIVIAN ROSE 12/12/2003
12/17/2003 12/17/2003
MOTION IN LIMINE TAYLOR KAREN 12/12/2003 12/15/2003 12/15/2003
ORDER SETTING HEARING OVROM ELIZA 12/05/2003 12/08/2003 12/08/2003
Comments: STATUS CONF: 12/12/03 @ 10:00 AM RM 204
RETURN OF SERVICE ON SUBPEONA 11/20/2003 12/09/2003 12/09/2003
Comments: 4=$0
RETURN OF SERVICE ON SUBPEONA 11/18/2003 11/25/2003 11/25/2003
Comments: 3=$0
ORDER SETTING HEARING OVROM ELIZA 11/14/2003 11/14/2003 11/14/2003
Comments: STATUS CONFERENCE
11/13/03 9AM RM 204
ALL PARTIES MUST BE PRESENT
ORDER SETTING TRIAL OVROM ELIZA 11/13/2003 11/14/2003 11/14/2003
Comments: 12/15/03 @ 9:00 AM RM 204
WAIVER OF SPEEDY TRIAL TAYLOR KAREN 11/13/2003 11/14/2003
11/14/2003
Comments: LIMITED
RETURN OF SERVICE ON SUBPEONA 11/10/2003 11/12/2003 11/12/2003
Comments: 1 = $0
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF DAVID DUVALL
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF BETH ANN SKOGEN
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF NEIL LEMKE
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF DENNIS WIEBEN
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF NATALIE BALUKOFF
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF SEAN BILYEU
RETURN OF SERVICE ON SUBPEONA 10/31/2003 11/04/2003 11/04/2003
Comments: 6=$0
AMENDED TRIAL INFORMATION OVROM ELIZA 10/31/2003 11/03/2003
11/03/2003
Comments: FILED BY JOHN JUDISCH
NOTICE WARD JAMES P 10/31/2003 11/03/2003 11/03/2003
Comments: OF ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
DNU - SUBPOENA PER DUCES TECUM 10/31/2003 11/03/2003 11/03/2003
Comments: 1 - $13.70
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: FOR DEPOSITIONS AND SERVICE
AT STATE EXPENSE
OTHER APPLICATION 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: FOR DEPOSITIONS AND SERVICE
AT STATE EXPENSE
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITION
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 10/07/2003 10/08/2003 10/08/2003
Comments: ORDER ENTERED 9/18/03 SETTING TRIAL FOR
11/19/03 WAS IS ERROR. TRIAL IS RESET FOR
11/12/03 @9:00 AM RM 204
OTHER EVENT 09/24/2003 09/26/2003 09/26/2003
Comments: DEFT'S COPY OF APP TO W/D
RETURNED UNDELIVERABLE
PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE OVROM ELIZA 09/18/2003 09/19/2003 09/19/2003
Comments: WAS HELD; TRIAL ON 11-19-03
ATDF TAYLOR
OTHER EVENT AMUNDSON LAURA K 08/26/2003 09/02/2003 09/02/2003
Comments: STATEMENT OF HOURS
.4-$18.00
APPEARANCE TAYLOR KAREN 08/25/2003 08/26/2003 08/26/2003
Comments: FILED BY KAREN TAYLOR
WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL OVROM ELIZA 08/21/2003 08/22/2003 08/22/2003
Comments: OF ADULT PUBLIC DEF IS GRANTED
KAREN TAYLOR IS APPOINTED
ORDER OF ARRAIGNMENT MCGHEE ODELL 08/21/2003 08/21/2003 08/21/2003
Comments: Pretrial Conference 09/18/2003 01:30 PM DCC1
Trial 10/22/2003 09:00 AM DCC9
Bond is continued
TRIAL INFORMATION OVROM ELIZA 08/20/2003 08/20/2003 08/20/2003
Comments: FILED BY JAMES WARD
ORDER FOR ARRAIGNMENT MCGHEE ODELL 08/14/2003 08/14/2003
08/14/2003
Comments: IN CUSTODY ON 8/21/03 AT 10:30AM JAILCOURT
OUT OF CUSTODY AT 8AM ROOM 204
PRELIM HAS NOT BEEN WAIVED SET FOR 8/22/03
DNU - HEARING FOR BOND REDUCTION MCGHEE ODELL 08/14/2003 08/14/2003
08/14/2003
Comments: BOND $13000 C/S
APP FOR COUNSEL/FINANCIAL STATMENT MCGHEE ODELL 08/13/2003
08/13/2003 08/13/2003
Comments: APPROVED
PD IS APPOINTED
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 08/13/2003 08/13/2003 08/13/2003
Comments: BURGLARY 2ND
ANPD 03-75354
HEARING FOR INITIAL APPEARANCE MCGHEE ODELL 08/13/2003 08/13/2003
08/13/2003
Comments: Preliminary Hearing 08/22/2003 08:00 AM DA03
Bond Review 08/14/2003 08:30 AM DA04
Bond set for 713.5 $13000 C/S
Total Bond $13000 C/S
Indexed PUBLIC DEFENDER-POLK COUNTYPIN-
PK1000375
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
Citation Number:
Orig Paid Due Summary
3501.70 3501.70 0.00 COSTS
0.00 0.00 0.00 FINE
125.00 125.00 0.00 SURCHARGE
0.00 0.00 0.00 RESTITUTION
27.50 27.50 0.00 OTHER
-------------------------------------
$3654.20 $3654.20 $0.00
WILLS, KENT B [ Collected Sept 13, 2009]
Age: 40
Rogers, AR
Ankeny, IA
Marshalltown, IA
Bartlett, IL
Villa Park, IL
And from another source: Hanover Park, IL
WILLS, FREDERICK ALFRED (Kent's Dad 65 )
WILLS, MICHAEL A (Kent's son ??)
WILLS, JANET RAE (Kent's Mom 62 )
HARTWIG,TIFFANY JEANNE (Wills) (Kent's sister )
From another source: Kelly M Wills Kent's wife ?? )
( Samantha T Wills, Kathleen M Wills, James Wills ? )
-----------------------------------
Consider the following:
If "our" Kent is NOT Kent Bradley Wills then
his ""Fake ID"" has worked well, so what's
the problem?
Consider Kent's OWN comments about:
A. regarding his sister (by name)
B. property in CORPORATION name (Wills Family Trust)
C. footage of "Wills" plaque avoiding first name
D. apt building at 202 NW College Ave Ankeny IA
E. past residence in various cities in IA
F. connection to Arkansas
G. that he set up/was assigned this ""Fake ID""
Does an actual Garage Burglary Felon have a
RIGHT to con people into thinking he ISN'T one?
Does a TWO time thieving Felon actually have
a right to conceal his record and a right
against having his record exposed?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.bob-larson/msg/b9653f6758b592b8
Newsgroups: alt.fan.bob-larson, alt.law-enforcement, alt.usenet.kooks
From: Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com>
Local: Wed, Oct 15 2008 5:59 pm
> and running to Arkansas ain't gonna help you this time, Kent --
KBW > I've never run to Arkansas.
KBW > We have a house near Fort Smith, AR.
KBW > I'm confident your stalking has found
KBW > just where it is. You were able to
KBW > find my phone number from when I
KBW > lived in Chicago (you posted part
KBW > of it) back in 1988, so finding a
KBW > current address should have been
KBW > real easy for you.
2006 Assets Learning Conference Session III.8
Understanding the New Bankruptcy and Credit Laws:
Implications for the Field
Facilitated for the Assets Alliance by:
Janet Wills
Wills Resources
8250 Wills Court
Rogers, AR 72756
Phone & Fax Number: (479) 925-4001
E-mail: janetw...@yahoo.com
Ramona McKinney
Asset Builders Program Director
Southern Good Faith Fund
2304 West 29th Avenue
Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71603
Phone Number: (870) 535-6233, ext. 15
E-mail: rmck...@southerngff.org
History of Bankruptcy
Roots of word traced to medieval Italy – “banco rotto” which means
broken bench
Early U. S. bankruptcy law was modification of British law
1800’s – First federal bankruptcy law signed by President John Adams
in 1800 2 more laws passed and repealed until the Bankruptcy Act of
1898
1900’s and Beyond
A bankruptcy environment that had as its focus helping debtors seek a
new start remained in place for most of 20th century.
By beginning of 21st century creditors successfully argued that this
current law and environment were too easy on debtors
BAPCPA
The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005
was passed and went into effect October 19, 2005
Interruption in our presentation
There is a blank page in the back of your packet. As we are talking
today about bankruptcy and credit, please use it to jot down some of
your thoughts on how this new bankruptcy environment is going to
impact you and the people you serve.
Specifically write yourself a note or two about at least one
bankruptcy proceeding you know about personally. Then in 20 words or
less state what you think the contributing cause was for that person’s
financial problems.
We will want to hear your thoughts later.
Types of Bankruptcy
Chapter 7
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapter 7
For personal bankruptcy
Often referred to is liquidation bankruptcy
Debtors turn over nonessential assets to bankruptcy trustee, who then
sells it off and distributes proceeds to creditors eliminating debt
completely
This type of bankruptcy was most affected by the BAOCPA
Chapter 11
For corporations that want to reorganize their finances and remain in
business
Features a debt repayment plan
Chapter 12
For family farmers and fishermen
Features payment plan and debt restructuring
Chapter 13
For individuals
Features debt repayment plan
More individuals who previously would have filed under Chapter 7 will
be forced into Chapter 13
Changes with the BAPCPA
Means test
Required Credit Counseling
Required Debtor Education
Means Test
To qualify for Chapter 7 “liquidation bankruptcy” individual must pass
means test
Income must be below state’s median income
Or if it is above, debtor is subject to means test
Monthly income less allowed expenses
If after all these subtractions the total monthly disposable income is
less than $100 the debtor has passed the Means Test
Means Test cont.
If disposable income is more than $166.67 Means test is flunked and
debtor is not eligible for Chapter 7, must go to Chapter 13
If disposable income is between $100 and $166.67 then calculations are
figured to see if what is left over is enough to pay off more than 25%
of unsecured debt over 5 years.
In other words – the means test is not easy.
Required Credit Counseling
Debtors filing for Chapter 7 must complete required credit counseling
& debtors must pay for it.* Credit Counseling must be provided by a
qualifying 501(c)3 organization that has been approved by Bankruptcy
Trustees.
*fee can be waived
Debtor Education
2 hours required
Required topics
Budget Development
Setting short-term & long-term financial goals as well as developing
skills to assist in achieving these goals
Calculating gross monthly income & net monthly income
Identifying & classifying monthly expenses as fixed, variable, or
periodic
Debtor Education
Required topics cont
Money Management
Keeping adequate financial records
Developing decision-making skills required to distinguish between
wants and needs and to comparison shop for goods & services
Maintaining appropriate levels of insurance coverage, taking into
account the types and costs of insurance
Saving for emergences, for periodic payments, and for financial goals
Debtor education
required topics cont.
Wise Use of Credit
Types sources, and costs of credit & loans
Identifying debt warning signs
Appropriate use of credit & alternatives to credit use
Checking a credit rating
Debtor Education
required topics cont.
Consumer information
Public and non-profit resources for consumer assistance
Applicable consumer protection laws and regulations, such as those
governing correction of a credit record and protection against
consumer fraud
Approved credit counseling and debtor education can be provided
In person
Internet
Telephone
(can be approved for a combination of internet/telephone. That is the
approval we have)
www.usdoj.gov/ust/
The U. S. Trustees home page
A Huge wealth of information
www.usdoj.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/ccde/cc_approved.htm#AL
Web site (part of the trustee web site) for list of approved credit
counselors and debtor education providers
Click on state
Click on your judicial district
Bankruptcy and the Future
At first it’s a relief – you file for bankruptcy, the creditors stop
calling and harassing you, and the juggling act ends.
Many people who file bankruptcy ask, “Now what can I expect?”
Let’s begin looking at “what’s next” by completing the quiz.
Bankruptcy will expire from your credit report after 10 years.
Some credit reporting agencies may remove Chapter 13 after 7 years.
Bankruptcy is for life – if you apply for insurance, credit, or a job
you can be asked if you have ever filed for bankruptcy. There is no
time limit even if it is very old.
Bankruptcy will stay with me forever: True.
2. The accounts included in my bankruptcy will be removed from my
credit report upon discharge: False.
Accounts included in bankruptcy expire independently from bankruptcy.
These accounts will be marked “Included in BK” on the credit report.
They will remain up to 7 years after filing.
After discharge the balance must be reported as “0.”
I will never get credit again: False.
You can expect receive many offers of credit.
Many of these may be from unscrupulous creditors with activation fees
and/or membership fees.
There are “debtor-friendly” agencies that specialize in credit repair
loans.
Do not be too eager to get credit again – know the terms and
conditions of the credit.
I will not be able to by a home for 10 years: False.
There are some lenders who prefer to deal with consumers with good
credit and will not do business for the 10 years it remains.
It is not a quick fix, it may take those in Chapter 13 three to five
years to complete their payment plan.
With strides to rebuild credit and no new negative “marks,” you may be
able to receive a conventional mortgage within one to two years.
Even after bankruptcy I may still have some of my existing debt:
True.
Even with Chapter 7 not all debt will be discharged, it depends on the
type of debts that are owed.
Certain debts that cannot be discharged include: most taxes, child
support, most student loans, court fines and criminal restitution, and
personal injury.
Debts incurred after filing for bankruptcy will not be included.
I will lose all my property if I file for bankruptcy: False.
With Chapter 13, which is like a payment plan, you may be allowed to
keep property.
Chapter 7 involves the sale of all assets that are not exempt.
Exemptions differ from state to state but typically allow: equity in
home, insurance, retirement plans, personal property, car, public
benefits, and/or tools used on job.
Filing for bankruptcy will lower my credit score: True.
The drop in the credit score will depend on the type of debt and
payment history prior to filing.
Credit score is calculated using a complicated algorithm that takes
into account hundreds of factors and values.
It is very difficult to predict how the credit score will be affected
but bankruptcy is one of the most negative factors included in the
report.
I cannot file for bankruptcy for 8 years after discharge: True.
This is only true for Chapter 7.
Chapter 13 waiting period is shorter and can be as little as two
years.
After bankruptcy all my debts will be free and clear and I will have
peace of mind: False.
As stated in #5 all debts will not be discharged.
Bankruptcy is listed in the top five life-altering negative events
that one can go through.
Bankruptcy is life-altering and leaves deep wounds both to the psyche
and the credit report.
After bankruptcy I will need to take steps to protect myself from
another bankruptcy: True.
Even if the bankruptcy was through no fault of your own it will be a
good time to examine what led to bankruptcy to begin to prepare for
unforeseen events.
Take a critical look at spending and saving habits.
Implement strategies to control spending, develop a budget, and start
a savings plan.
Let’s Talk About It
Implications to the IDA field
The “typical” person seeking bankruptcy
Contributing causes
Kent Wills
wrote:
>WASHINGTON - Spanking negatively affects the behaviour of toddlers in
>low-income families, according to a new study.
>Published in the journal Child Development, the longitudinal study
>looked at how low-income parents discipline their young children.
>It showed that spanking 1-year-olds leads to more aggressive
>behaviours and less sophisticated cognitive development in the next
>two years.
>Verbal punishment, however, was not found to be associated with such
>effects, especially when it was accompanied by emotional support from
>mothers.
[...]
Pretty much says it all. Spank your child and the child will
have problems.
How often were you spanked, Greg? Given the problems you display
on-line, I would think it was quite often.
BTW, you didn't link to any studies. You linked to *opinions* of
two people regarding one survey of the work of others and one that
doesn't cite anything academic at all. It's someone simply ranting
about their own opinion. Their opinion is just that. Please don't
call such a thing a study.
Did you actually READ the articles? I suspect you did not, but
you alone can know.
--a true story
Summary Orig Paid Due
COSTS 9200.00 850.00 8350.00
FINE 500.00 500.00 0.00
SURCHARGE 150.00 150.00 0.00
RESTITUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00