NC Appeals Court declares Child Abuse Registry UNCONSTITUTIONAL

[Greegor]

Several states have abolished these registries
altogether because they are so UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

A few other states have wiped their list clean
and started over hoping to delay the inevitable
abolishment of these UNCONSTITUTIONAL
""Child Abuse"" registries.

These are not people who have been criminally convicted.

All it takes is a Child Protection caseworker who
doesn't LIKE you and their rubber stamp bureaucratic
supervisor to put you on one of these ""registries"".

Being listed on one can block you from jobs in teaching,
jobs in day care, jobs as school bus drivers,
jobs in museums or schools, scout leaders,
school volunteers, can block you from adopting, etc.

North Carolina's "Responsible Individual’s List" is what most
states and the Feds refer to as a state Child Abuser registry.

The ""Child Protection"" INDUSTRY is corrupt and
unconstitutional to the core.

Court removal of children involves a LIBERTY INTEREST
greater than mere prison time. Such decisions should
not be handled by mere "Administrative Law" courts with
low standards that do NOT conform to the standards
appropriate for cases regarding such deadly serious
Liberty Interests as removal of children and possible
Termination of Parental Rights.

http://www.aoc.state.nc.us/www/public/coa/opinions/2010/pdf/090205-1.pdf

NO. COA09-205
NORTH CAROLINA COURT OF APPEALS
Filed: 2 March 2010
IN THE MATTER OF:
W.B.M.,1
A MINOR CHILD
New Hanover County
No. 07 JR 219
PETITIONER:
KELLY HOLT
Appeal by Petitioner from orders entered 30 July and 17
October 2008 by Judge J.H. Corpening, II in New Hanover County
District Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 September 2009.
Miriam M. Thompson for Petitioner.
Dean W. Hollandsworth for Respondent New Hanover County
Department of Social Services.
STEPHENS, Judge.
The pivotal issue raised by this appeal is whether the
statutory procedures for placing an individual’s name on the
Responsible Individual’s List under Articles 3 and 3A of the North
Carolina Juvenile Code violate the individual’s procedural due
process rights under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the
United States Constitution and Article I, Section 19 of the North
Carolina Constitution. For the reasons stated below, we conclude
that, at a minimum, the challenged statutory procedures violate an
-2-
individual’s due process rights under Article I, Section 19 of the
North Carolina Constitution.
I. Statutory Scheme
Petitioner challenges the State’s procedures for placing the
names of individuals who have allegedly abused or neglected
children on the Responsible Individuals List (“RIL”). As this is
an issue of first impression before this Court, a full explanation
of the statutory scheme governing the RIL is essential for an
understanding of this case.
A. The Responsible Individuals List
Chapter 7B, Division 01, Article 3 of the North Carolina
General Statutes governs the screening and assessment of abuse and
neglect reports of children, and the process by which substantiated
reports may be reviewed. N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 7B-300 to -311 (2007).
The Department of Health and Human Services (“DHHS”) maintains “a
list of responsible individuals identified by county directors of
social services as the result of investigative assessment
responses” to reports of child maltreatment. N.C. Gen. Stat. §
7B-311(b). Information from this list may be provided by DHHS to
“child caring institutions, child placing agencies, group home
facilities, and other providers of foster care, child care, or
adoption services that need to determine the fitness of individuals
to care for or adopt children.” Id.
B. Reporting and Initial Placement on the RIL
The RIL procedures are triggered by reports of suspected child
maltreatment made to the department of social services. N.C. Gen.
-3-
Stat. § 7B-301. State law places an affirmative duty on all
individuals and institutions who have “cause to suspect that any
juvenile is abused, neglected, or dependent . . . [to] report the
case of that juvenile to the director of the department of social
services in the county where the juvenile resides or is found.”
Id. Upon receipt of a report, “the director of the department of
social services shall make a prompt and thorough assessment . . .
in order to ascertain the facts of the case, the extent of the
abuse or neglect, and the risk of harm to the juvenile[.]” N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 7B-302(a).
Within five working days of completing an investigative
assessment response that results in a determination of abuse or
serious neglect, the director must notify DHHS of the results of
the assessment and must give personal written notice to the
individual deemed responsible for the abuse or serious neglect.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-320(a). The notice to the responsible
individual must include the following:
(1) A statement informing the individual of
the nature of the investigative assessment
response and whether the director determined
abuse or serious neglect or both.
(2) A statement summarizing the substantial
evidence supporting the director’s
determination without identifying the reporter
or collateral contacts.
(3) A statement informing the individual that
the individual’s name has been placed on the
responsible individuals list as provided in
[N.C. Gen. Stat. §] 7B-311 . . . .
(4) A clear description of the actions the
individual must take to have his or her name
-4-
removed from the responsible individuals
list. . . .
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-320(c).
C. Procedures for Removal from the RIL
1. Review by the Director
“An individual who has been identified as a responsible
individual as the result of an investigative assessment response
may, within 30 days after receipt of the notice under [N.C. Gen.
Stat. §] 7B-320(c), request that the director who determined the
abuse or serious neglect and identified the individual as a
responsible individual expunge the individual’s name from the
responsible individuals list.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-321(a). Upon
receipt of a timely request for expunction, “the director shall
review all records, reports, and other information gathered during
the investigative assessment response . . . to determine whether
there is substantial evidence to support the determination and the
placement of the individual’s name on the responsible individuals
list.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-321(b). “If the director decides that
there is not substantial evidence in the records, reports, and
other information gathered during the investigative assessment
response to support a determination of abuse or serious neglect and
to support the identification of the individual as a responsible
individual,” the director must notify DHHS to expunge the
individual’s name from the RIL. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-321(b)(1).
“If the director decides that there is substantial evidence . . .
to support a determination of abuse or serious neglect and to
support the identification of the individual as a responsible
-5-
individual, the director may . . . refuse the request for an
expunction.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-321(b)(2). “If the director
does not provide a written response to a request for expunction
within 15 working days after its receipt, the failure shall be
considered a refusal to expunge the individual’s name . . . .”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-321(c). “An individual whose request for
expunction has been refused by a director . . . may, within 30 days
after receipt of the notice of refusal, request a review of the
director’s decision by the district attorney . . . or file a
petition requesting expunction with the district court . . . .”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-321(e).
2. Review by the District Attorney
Within 30 days of receiving a request to review, the district
attorney shall review the director’s decision to refuse to expunge
the individual’s name from the responsible individuals list and
make a determination of agreement or disagreement with the
director’s decision. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-322(b). For purposes of
the review, the director shall provide the district attorney all
the information the director used in making the determination. Id.
If the district attorney determines there is “not substantial
evidence to support a determination of abuse or serious neglect and
to support the identification of an individual as a responsible
individual,” the individual’s name must be expunged from the RIL.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-322(c). If the district attorney determines
there is “substantial evidence to support a determination of abuse
or serious neglect and to support the identification of an
-6-
individual as a responsible individual,” the individual’s name must
remain on the list. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-322(d).
3. Review by the District Court
“Within 30 days of the receipt of notice of the director’s
decision under [N.C. Gen. Stat. §] 7B-321(b) or (c), or within 30
days from the date of a determination by the district attorney
under [N.C. Gen. Stat. §] 7B-322, whichever is later, an individual
may file a petition for expunction with the district court of the
county in which the abuse or serious neglect report arose.” N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 7B-323(a). Upon receipt of a filed petition for
expunction, the clerk of court “shall calendar the matter for
hearing at a session of district court hearing juvenile matters and
send notice of the hearing to the [individual] and the director.”
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-323(b). “At the hearing, the director shall
have the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence the
correctness of the director’s decision determining abuse or serious
neglect and identifying the individual seeking expunction as a
responsible individual.” Id.
“Within 30 days after completion of the hearing, the court
shall enter a signed, written order containing findings of fact and
conclusions of law.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-323(d). “If the court
concludes that the director has not established by a preponderance
of the evidence the correctness of the determination of abuse or
serious neglect or the identification of the responsible
individual, the court shall reverse the director’s decision[,]” and
the individual’s name must be expunged from the list. Id.
-7-
“Notwithstanding any time limitations contained in this
section or the provisions of [N.C. Gen. Stat. §] 7B-324(a)(3) or
(4), a district court may review a determination of abuse or
serious neglect at any time if the review serves the interests of
justice or for extraordinary circumstances.” N.C. Gen. Stat. §
7B-323(e).
4. Review by the Appellate Court
Either party may appeal the district court’s decision to the
Court of Appeals. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-323(f); N.C. Gen. Stat. §
7A-27(c) (2007).
D. Individuals Ineligible to Request Expunction
An individual whose name has been placed on the RIL may not
challenge that placement if any of the following apply:
(1) The individual is criminally convicted as
a result of the same incident. . . .
(2) The individual is a respondent in a
juvenile court proceeding regarding abuse or
neglect resulting from the same
incident. . . .
(3) That individual fails to make a timely
request for expunction with the director who
made the determination . . . .
(4) That individual fails to file a petition
for expunction with the district court in a
timely manner.
(5) That individual fails to keep the county
department of social services informed of the
individual’s current address during any
request for expunction . . . .
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-324(a).
The statutory scheme is silent as to how long an individual’s
name remains on the RIL if the individual does not request an
-8-
expunction, is denied an expunction, or is ineligible to request an
expunction.
II. Factual Background and
Procedural History in the Present Case
Petitioner is the biological father of the minor child W.B.M.
(“the child”). Petitioner is not married to the child’s mother
(“the mother”) and has secondary custody of the child with
visitation on Tuesdays, Thursdays, and every other weekend.
Petitioner and the mother have a cordial relationship and by all
accounts, visitation between Petitioner and his son has always gone
well.
The mother testified that around June of 2006, the child
started to exhibit troublesome behaviors. On at least two
different occasions, the mother witnessed the child trying to
insert his fingers into his rectum. When she asked him why he was
doing that, he said because he “‘had to do this’” and that “‘this
is what Kelly do to me[.]’” The mother spoke with the child’s
pediatric nurse who advised her to make a report with the
department of social services. Also around that time, the child
started not wanting to go with strangers, started displaying angry
behavior, wouldn’t go to the bathroom at daycare, and started
masturbating.
The mother made a report to the New Hanover County Department
of Social Services (“DSS”). Ruth Massey, an investigator with DSS,
interviewed the mother. She then took the mother and the child to
the Brunswick County Sheriff’s Department to be interviewed.
Detective Simpson of the Sheriff’s Department conducted the
-9-
interview with the child, which was videotaped, and Ms. Massey
observed the interview from another room. The child’s statements
during the interview “mirrored” his statements to his mother.
After the interview, Detective Simpson had the mother call
Petitioner on the telephone “to try and get any information” from
him about the child’s behaviors and allegations. Detective Simpson
advised the mother to tell Petitioner that there was an
investigation and that the sheriff’s department needed to speak
with him. During that phone call, Petitioner denied any
wrongdoing.
On 29 September 2006, the child was given a physical
examination by Dr. Archer at the Children’s Clinic. No physical
signs of abuse were found. On 5 October 2006, the child was taken
for a second physical examination at the Carousel Center. Beth
Deaton, P.A., attempted to examine the child, who did not want to
participate in the examination.
After the child had been interviewed and physically examined,
Ms. Massey contacted Petitioner and asked him to come in for an
interview. Ms. Massey interviewed Petitioner on 6 October 2006 for
“approximately a half-hour, 45 minutes, roughly.” Petitioner
denied any wrongdoing and could not think of any reason the child
would make such statements about him. He did voice his concern
regarding the mother’s boyfriend because the boyfriend had an
extensive criminal history. Ms. Massey asked Petitioner to
voluntarily suspend his visitation with the child during the
investigation or she would get a court order suspending it.
-10-
Petitioner agreed to voluntarily suspend visitation with his son.
Petitioner called Ms. Massey several times after the interview
to inquire when Detective Simpson was going to contact him and
interview him. Detective Simpson never interviewed him and there
was no further investigation into the matter.
Ms. Massey’s next face-to-face contact with Petitioner was on
12 January 2007, when she informed him that the allegations of
sexual abuse had been substantiated, that he was being placed on
the RIL, and that the case was being closed. DSS did not enter
into a case plan with Petitioner as he lived in Brunswick County
and did not enter into a case plan with the mother as she had moved
to Bladen County.
DSS followed up with the mother and requested that she
continue to provide protection for the child by not allowing
Petitioner any contact with the child. DSS also asked Petitioner
to seek “sex offender-specific treatment counseling” and informed
him that if a counselor made contact with DSS and informed them
that there was no risk to the child, Petitioner would be allowed
contact with his son at that time. DSS also sent a letter to Terry
McCoy, a social worker with the Bladen County Department of Social
Services, advising her that sexual abuse had been substantiated but
that DSS had closed the case as the mother had moved, and further
advising her that Petitioner was to have no contact with the child
unless the above-stated conditions had been met.
Within 30 days of being notified of his placement on the RIL,
Petitioner requested that the DSS Director review that decision.
-11-
On 27 February 2007, the DSS Director notified Petitioner that he
was upholding the decision to place Petitioner on the RIL.
Petitioner timely requested that the District Attorney’s
office review the decision of the DSS Director. On 24 May 2007,
New Hanover County Assistant District Attorney Connie Jordan
notified Petitioner that she was upholding the DSS Director’s
decision to keep Petitioner on the RIL.
On 21 June 2007, Petitioner filed a Petition for Expunction
from the RIL in New Hanover County District Court. After a hearing
on 23 August and 12 September 2007, Judge Corpening denied
Petitioner’s expunction request and ordered DSS attorney Dean
Hollandsworth to prepare an order with detailed findings of fact.
Although N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-323(d) requires that a written
order containing findings of fact and conclusions of law be entered
within 30 days after conclusion of the expunction hearing, as of 7
July 2008, no order had been entered.
On 7 July 2008, Petitioner filed a Motion to Remove Kelly
Holt’s Name from the Responsible Individual’s List, alleging, inter
alia, that N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-323 is unconstitutional. On 30
July 2008, a written order denying Petitioner’s Petition for
Expunction was entered. Also on that date, a hearing on
Petitioner’s Motion to Remove was held, and the trial court orally
denied the motion. On 17 October 2008, the trial court entered a
written order denying Petitioner’s Motion to Remove and
“declin[ing] to find at this stage of the proceeding that [N.C.
-12-
Gen. Stat. §] 7B-323 is unconstitutional.” From the 30 July and 17
October 2008 orders, Petitioner appeals.
III. Discussion
A. Preservation of Constitutional Challenge
We first address the State’s argument that Petitioner failed
to raise any constitutional challenge to the RIL procedures while
he “exercised the process of expunction of his name from the RIL”
and, thus, Petitioner is barred from now raising a constitutional
challenge on appeal. We disagree.
In Petitioner’s Motion to Remove Kelly Holt’s Name from the
Responsible Individual’s List, filed 7 July 2008, Petitioner
alleged as follows:
9. That North Carolina General Statute §
7B-323 is unconstitutional on its face
because the listing of Petitioner’s name
on said list without a prior hearing
constitutes a violation of the
Petitioner’s procedural due process
rights under the 5th and 14th amendments to
the United States Constitution and
similar provisions of the North Carolina
Constitution.
10. That North Carolina General Statute § 7B-
323 is unconstitutional on its face
because the burden of proof . . . fails
to satisfy the minimum requirements of
due process.
These allegations in Petitioner’s motion are sufficient to preserve
the issue for our review. N.C. R. App. P. 10(b)(1). The State’s
argument is overruled.
B. Due Process Challenge
Petitioner argues that the statutory procedures for placing an
individual on the RIL are unconstitutional on their face as they
-13-
violate the individual’s procedural due process rights under the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution
and Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution.
“A facial challenge to a legislative Act is, of course, the
most difficult challenge to mount successfully . . . .” United
States v. Salerno, 481 U.S. 739, 745, 95 L. Ed. 2d 697, 707 (1987).
“The presumption is that any act passed by the legislature is
constitutional, and the court will not strike it down if such
legislation can be upheld on any reasonable ground.” Ramsey v.
N.C. Veterans Comm’n, 261 N.C. 645, 647, 135 S.E.2d 659, 661
(1964). An individual challenging the facial constitutionality of
a legislative act “must establish that no set of circumstances
exists under which the Act would be valid.” Salerno, 481 U.S. at
745, 95 L. Ed. 2d at 707.
The Due Process Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United
States Constitution guarantees that “[n]o person shall be . . .
deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of
law[.]” U.S. Const. amend. V. A similar protection, that no
“State [shall] deprive any person of life, liberty, or property,
without due process of law” is contained in the Fourteenth
Amendment to the United States Constitution. U.S. Const. amend.
XIV, § 1. Article I, Section 19 of the North Carolina Constitution
warrants that “[n]o person shall be taken, imprisoned, or disseized
of his freehold, liberties, or privileges, or outlawed, or exiled,
or in any manner deprived of his life, liberty, or property, but by
the law of the land.” N.C. Const. art. I, § 19. The expression
-14-
“the law of the land” as used in Article I, Section 19 of the North
Carolina Constitution, is synonymous with the expression “due
process of law.” State v. Ballance, 229 N.C. 764, 769, 51 S.E.2d
731, 734 (1949).
Procedural due process protection ensures that government
action depriving a person of life, liberty, or property is
implemented in a fair manner. State v. Thompson, 349 N.C. 483,
491, 508 S.E.2d 277, 282 (1998). We examine procedural due process
questions in two steps: first, we must determine whether there
exists a liberty or property interest which has been interfered
with by the State, Bd. of Regents v. Roth, 408 U.S. 564, 571, 33 L.
Ed. 2d 548, 557 (1972); second, we must determine whether the
procedures attendant upon that deprivation were constitutionally
sufficient. Hewitt v. Helms, 459 U.S. 460, 472, 74 L. Ed. 2d 675,
688 (1983).
Under both our federal and state constitutions, “[t]he
fundamental requirement of due process is the opportunity to be
heard ‘at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner.’” Mathews
v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 333, 47 L. Ed. 2d 18, 32 (1976) (quoting
Armstrong v. Manzo, 380 U.S. 545, 552, 14 L. Ed. 2d 62, 66 (1965));
accord Thompson, 349 N.C. at 498, 508 S.E.2d at 286. The United
States Supreme Court has consistently held that some form of
hearing is required before a final deprivation of a protected
interest, although the exact nature and mechanism of the required
procedure will vary based upon the unique circumstances surrounding
the controversy. See Peace v. Employment Sec. Comm’n, 349 N.C.
-15-
315, 322, 507 S.E.2d 272, 278 (1998) (citing Mathews, 424 U.S. at
333, 47 L. Ed. 2d at 32; Wolff v. McDonnell, 418 U.S. 539, 557-58,
41 L. Ed. 2d 935, 952 (1974)). Three factors must be considered by
a court in determining what procedures are constitutionally
sufficient:
First, the private interest that will be
affected by the official action; second, the
risk of an erroneous deprivation of such
interest through the procedures used, and the
probable value, if any, of additional or
substitute procedural safeguards; and finally,
the Government’s interest, including the
function involved and the fiscal and
administrative burdens that the additional or
substitute procedural requirement would
entail.
Mathews, 424 U.S. at 335, 47 L. Ed. 2d at 33; see also Soles v.
City of Raleigh Civil Serv. Comm’n, 345 N.C. 443, 448, 480 S.E.2d
685, 688, reh’g denied, 345 N.C. 761, 485 S.E.2d 299 (1997).
Applying these principles to the present case, this Court must
first decide whether an individual has a protected liberty or
property interest in not being listed on the RIL. If so, then this
Court must determine whether the present statutory scheme provides
individuals with sufficient notice and an opportunity to be heard
at a meaningful time and in a meaningful manner. If the process is
inadequate, this Court must determine what alternative or
additional protections are necessary to satisfy due process.
1. Constitutionally Protected Interest
Article I, Section 1 of the North Carolina Constitution
declares that “[w]e hold it to be self-evident that all persons are
created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain
-16-
inalienable rights; that among these are life, liberty, the
enjoyment of the fruits of their own labor, and the pursuit of
happiness.” N.C. Const. art. I, § 1. Article I, Section 19 of the
North Carolina Constitution prescribes that “[n]o person shall be
taken, imprisoned, or disseized of his freehold, liberties, or
privileges, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any manner deprived of
his life, liberty, or property, but by the law of the land.” N.C.
Const. art. I, § 19. Our Supreme Court has explained that
[t]hese fundamental guaranties are very broad
in scope, and are intended to secure to each
person subject to the jurisdiction of the
State extensive individual rights, including
that of personal liberty. The term “liberty,”
as used in these constitutional
provisions . . . includes the right of the
citizen to be free to use his faculties in all
lawful ways; to live and work where he will;
to earn his livelihood by any lawful calling;
[and] to pursue any livelihood or
vocation . . . .
Ballance, 229 N.C. at 769, 51 S.E.2d at 734 (citations and
quotation marks omitted).
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-320(c)(3) allows DHHS to provide
information from the RIL “to child caring institutions, child
placing agencies, group home facilities, and other providers of
foster care, child care, or adoption services that need to
determine the fitness of individuals to care for or adopt
children.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-320(c)(3). “Information from this
list shall be used exclusively for the purpose of determining
current or prospective employability or fitness to care for or
adopt children.” 10A N.C. Admin. Code 70A.0102(c) (2007).
-17-
Thus, placement on the RIL carries consequences that are
serious to the accused individual. Those consequences flow in part
from the personal stigma undoubtably attached to the accused
individual by persons acquiring the individual’s name from the
list, even if such acquisition is “exclusively” for a determination
of the individual’s “employability or fitness to care for or adopt
children.” Id. The consequences also flow from the actions of the
designated agencies that may penalize the individual on the basis
of his or her inclusion on the RIL. An individual who is branded
as a “child abuser” as a result of his or her inclusion on the RIL
is “maimed and crippled. The injury is real, immediate, and
incalculable.” Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm. v. McGrath, 341
U.S. 123, 175, 95 L. Ed. 817, 856 (1951) (Frankfurter, J.,
concurring) (discussing the serious consequences resulting to an
organization that is branded a “Communist” organization by the
Attorney General of the United States).
We conclude that inclusion on the RIL deprives an individual
of the liberty interests guaranteed under our State Constitution by
inhibiting the individual from using his faculties to adopt,
foster, and care for children, earning his livelihood in the
childcare field, or pursuing or securing employment in the
childcare field.
2. Procedures Used
Because an individual’s liberty interests are adversely
affected by virtue of being listed on the RIL, this Court must
balance the Mathews factors to determine whether the statutory
-18-
procedures adequately protect the individual’s interests. We first
address the factors relating to the personal and government
interests involved, and then analyze the risk of error created by
the procedures established by the State.
a. Private Interest
As discussed above, the private interest affected by inclusion
on the RIL is an individual’s liberty: that is, the individual’s
liberty to be free to use his faculties to adopt, foster, and care
for children, to earn his livelihood in the childcare field, and to
pursue a career in the childcare profession.
b. Countervailing State Interest
On the other hand, the State has an undeniably vital interest
in protecting children from abuse and neglect. See Santosky v.
Kramer, 455 U.S. 745, 766, 71 L. Ed. 2d 599, 615 (1982) (noting
state’s interest in protection of children). We agree with the
State that there is a significant interest on the part of the State
in maintaining the RIL “to prevent those who have harmed children
from being employed in positions where they would have access to
further victims by way of their employment.”
c. Risk of Erroneous Deprivation
Petitioner argues that the statutory procedures are
constitutionally infirm because they permit an individual’s name to
be listed on the RIL without first providing an adequate
opportunity to be heard. He contends that an individual is
entitled to a pre-deprivation hearing before being placed on the
RIL.
-19-
It is a well-settled principle that if the State feasibly can
provide a hearing before depriving an individual of a protected
interest, it generally must do so in order to minimize
“substantively unfair or mistaken deprivations[.]” Fuentes v.
Shevin, 407 U.S. 67, 81, 32 L. Ed. 2d 556, 570, reh’g denied, 409
U.S. 902, 34 L. Ed. 2d 165 (1972). Indeed, “[i]f the right to
notice and a hearing is to serve its full purpose, then, it is
clear that it must be granted at a time when the deprivation can
still be prevented.” Id. While an individual’s possessions can be
returned to him if it is determined at a later hearing that they
were unfairly or mistakenly taken in the first place and damages
may even be awarded to him for such a wrongful deprivation, “no
later hearing and no damage award can undo the fact that the
arbitrary taking that was subject to the right of procedural due
process has already occurred.” Id. at 81-82, 32 L. Ed. 2d at 570.
“This Court has not . . . embraced the general proposition that a
wrong may be done if it can be undone.” Stanley v. Illinois, 405
U.S. 645, 647, 31 L. Ed. 2d 551, 556 (1972).
Here, the RIL procedures are triggered by a report of
suspected child maltreatment made to the department of social
services. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-301. In response to the report,
the department of social services director must make a “prompt and
thorough assessment . . . to ascertain the facts of the case, the
extent of the abuse or neglect, and the risk of harm to the
juvenile[.]” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-302(a). If, at the conclusion
of the assessment, the director determines that there is
-20-
2 The Central Registry is a statewide registry maintained by
the Family Support and Children’s Division (“the division”) of
Missouri’s Department of Social Services. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 210.109
(2007). Similar to the RIL, the registry is a list “of persons
where the division has found probable cause to believe prior to
August 28, 2004, or by a preponderance of the evidence after August
28, 2004, or a court has substantiated through court adjudication
that the individual has committed child abuse or neglect[.]” Mo.
Rev. Stat. § 210.110(3) (2007).
3 In an investigation into a report of abuse or neglect, the
director of social services shall conduct “a face-to-face interview
with the alleged perpetrator or perpetrators unless there is
documentation [in the case record] to explain why such an interview
was not conducted.” 10A N.C. Admin. Code 70A.0106(f) (2007).
“substantial evidence” to support a determination that the accused
individual abused or seriously neglected the child, the individual
is notified of the nature of the investigative assessment and his
or her name is placed on the RIL. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-320(a).
Because there is no case law in North Carolina controlling our
analysis of the issues raised by this appeal, we will look to other
jurisdictions for guidance. While we are not bound by the
decisions of courts in those jurisdictions, we find their reasoning
to be instructive in this case and conclude that the DSS
investigation alone is plainly insufficient to support the loss of
liberty that accompanies listing on the RIL. See Jamison v. Dep’t
of Soc. Servs., Div. of Family Servs., 218 S.W.3d 399, 408 (Mo.
2007) (“The investigation alone, even after review by the local
director, is plainly insufficient to support the loss of liberty
that accompanies listing in the Central Registry.”2). Although the
accused individual may have the opportunity to respond to the
investigator’s inquiries,3 this opportunity is not guaranteed and
-21-
4 Moreover, “[w]ithin 30 days after completion of the hearing,
the court shall enter a signed, written order containing findings
of fact and conclusions of law.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-323(d).
Thus, an individual must wait as long as 30 days after completion
of the hearing for the trial court to enter a written order.
Notwithstanding this statutory time limit, however, in this case,
the trial court failed to enter a written order after the
there is no requirement that, at the time of the interview, the
individual be apprised of the allegations against him.
Furthermore, “[an] investigation is exactly that -- an
investigation. No matter how elaborate, an investigation does not
replace a hearing.” Winegar v. Des Moines Indep. Cmty. Sch. Dist.,
20 F.3d 895, 901 (8th Cir.), cert. denied, 513 U.S. 964, 130 L. Ed.
2d 340 (1994). Consequently, the face-to-face interview cannot
constitute an opportunity to be heard “at a meaningful time or in
a ‘meaningful manner.’” Jamison, 218 S.W.3d at 409 (citation
omitted).
Furthermore, “[t]he length and consequent severity of a
deprivation are considered in determining what procedural
protections are constitutionally required.” Id. (quoting Belton v.
Bd. of Police Comm’rs, 708 S.W.2d 131, 137 (Mo. 1986)). Here, an
individual could spend more than 169 days on the RIL before the
clerk of court calendars an expunction hearing. See N.C. Gen.
Stat. §§ 7B-320, 321, 322, and 323. Additionally, the procedures
set no time limit on how long the clerk of court can take to
schedule a hearing. See N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-323(b) (“[U]pon
receipt of a filed petition for expunction[,][the clerk of court]
shall calendar the matter for hearing at a session of district
court hearing juvenile matters . . . .”).4 This extended delay
-22-
completion of hearing on 12 September 2007 until 30 July 2008,
approximately 322 days after the hearing, and only after Petitioner
filed a motion on 7 July 2008 drawing the court’s attention to this
failure.
before an individual receives an opportunity to be heard is a
significant factor in determining whether a pre-deprivation hearing
is needed. See Mathews, 424 U.S. at 341, 47 L. Ed. 2d at 37 (delay
between the deprivation and final decision after a hearing “is an
important factor in assessing the impact of official action on the
private interests” (citation and quotation marks omitted)); Brock
v. Roadway Express, Inc., 481 U.S. 252, 270, 95 L. Ed. 2d 239, 255
(1987) (Brennan, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part)
(the adequacy of and need for “pre[-]deprivation procedures is in
significant part a function of the speed with which a
post[-]deprivation or final determination is made”).
The failure to provide a pre-deprivation hearing is acceptable
only if (1) a pre-deprivation hearing would be “unduly burdensome
in proportion to the liberty interest at stake,” (2) the State is
unable to anticipate the deprivation, or (3) an emergency requires
immediate action. Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 132, 108 L. Ed.
2d 100, 118 (1990). Neither the second nor the third situation is
implicated in this instance. Furthermore, with regard to the first
situation, holding a hearing to determine if there is sufficient
evidence to place an individual on the RIL before placing the
individual on the list is no more functionally or financially
burdensome than holding a hearing after the individual has been
-23-
placed on the list to determine if the individual should be removed
from the list.
Nonetheless, the State argues that a post-deprivation hearing
is sufficient to satisfy due process because
the actionable private interest, if any exists
in this case, is far outweighed by the
[S]tate’s interest in keeping pedophiles,
violent abusive persons and other individuals
capable of serious harm to children out of
employment that would give them an avenue to
perpetrate more harm on the [S]tate’s most
vulnerable population.
While it is uncontested that protecting children from abuse
and neglect is a significant State interest, this goal “can be
fulfilled by means other than depriving individuals of substantial
liberty interests without a prior opportunity to be heard.”
Jamison, 218 S.W.3d at 410. The State has not shown that inclusion
on the RIL is required for the department of social services or law
enforcement to respond to emergencies by investigating reports of
abuse or neglect, removing children from dangerous environments, or
pursuing criminal charges against an alleged perpetrator. Rather,
the RIL provides information to employers in the childcare industry
as a complement to the additional and more immediate protective
measures permitted by North Carolina law. However, “[t]he need for
expediency cannot overshadow the fact that a critical decision [is]
being made about [an individual.]” New York v. David W., 733
N.E.2d 206, 212 (N.Y. 2000) (procedures used to determine sex
offender registry requirements and dissemination guidelines helped
notify vulnerable populations of a possible threat but were
unconstitutional because they failed to provide probationers an
-24-
opportunity to be heard before deprivation of a liberty interest).
After weighing the significant interests of an individual
against those of the State, and examining the risk of erroneous
deprivation inherent in the current statutory procedures, we hold
that an individual has a right to notice and an opportunity to be
heard before being placed on the RIL. As currently written, the
RIL procedures are unconstitutional under Article I, Section 19 of
the North Carolina Constitution because they violate an
individual’s due process rights by listing the individual on the
RIL prior to a hearing.
3. Burden of Proof
The next question is what standard of proof the State must
meet at a pre-deprivation hearing to satisfy the minimum
requirements of due process.
We conclude that due process requires the State to
substantiate a report of child abuse or neglect by a preponderance
of the evidence before an individual’s name can be included in and
disseminated from the RIL. See Jamison, 218 S.W.3d at 412 (“Due
process requires a [Child Abuse and Neglect Review Board] to
substantiate a report of child abuse or neglect by a preponderance
of the evidence before an individual’s name can be included in and
disseminated from the Central Registry.”).
Currently, at the district court hearing provided under N.C.
Gen. Stat. § 7B-323, “the director shall have the burden of proving
by a preponderance of the evidence the correctness of the
-25-
director’s decision determining abuse or serious neglect and
identifying the individual seeking expunction as a responsible
individual.” N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-323(b) (emphasis added). In the
district court hearing in the present case, the presiding judge
described the “whole set of statutes” as “interesting . . . because
we’re not here trying the issue of sexual abuse. We’re here on the
review of the correctness of the Director’s decision and whether
the Director can establish by a preponderance of the evidence the
correctness of his decision.” The judge further explained that the
correctness of the director’s decision “is based on whether there
is substantial evidence in the records, reports, and other
information gathered during the investigation to support the
decision.”
While the statute correctly identifies the burden of proof
required at the hearing as a preponderance of the evidence, the
statute incorrectly identifies the fact that must be proven by a
preponderance of the evidence as “the correctness of the director’s
decision[,]” id., instead of whether the accused individual
perpetrated abuse or serious neglect of a juvenile. Indeed, as
argued by Petitioner, the statute only allows the judge to review
the reports and records accumulated during the initial
investigation to determine if the department of social services
“came up with enough” to justify its decision. Such limited review
violates an individual’s right to be heard “in a meaningful
manner[,]” Mathews, 424 U.S. at 333, 47 L. Ed. 2d at 32 (citation
and quotation marks omitted), as it does not allow the fact finder
-26-
to weigh the evidence, thus eviscerating the purpose of allowing
the accused individual the opportunity to be heard and to present
his or her case.
In order to satisfy due process, we hold that at the
constitutionally necessary pre-deprivation hearing in the district
court, the director shall have the burden of proving abuse or
serious neglect and identifying the responsible individual by a
preponderance of the evidence.
C. Untimely Order
Finally, Petitioner argues that the trial court erred in
failing to remove his name from the RIL because the written order
from the hearing on Petitioner’s petition for expunction was
entered outside of the statutory 30-day time limit.
N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-323(d) requires a written order
containing findings of fact and conclusions of law to be entered
within 30 days after the conclusion of an expunction hearing in
district court. N.C. Gen. Stat. § 7B-323(d). In this case, the
district court held an expunction hearing on 23 August and 12
September 2007 and, on 12 September 2007, announced in open court
that Petitioner’s name should not be expunged from the RIL.
However, an order was not reduced to writing, signed, and filed by
the district court until 30 July 2008, more than 10 months past the
statutory time period.
Petitioner argues in his brief that he was prejudiced by such
delay and, thus, his name should be removed from the RIL. However,
at oral argument, counsel for Petitioner conceded that this matter
-27-
is controlled by our Supreme Court’s ruling in In re T.H.T., 362
N.C. 446, 665 S.E.2d 54 (2008), such that “[m]andamus is the proper
remedy when the trial court fails to . . . enter an order as
required by statute.” Id. at 454, 665 S.E.2d at 59.
Accordingly, while we disapprove of the inordinate delay in
entry of the written order, we conclude that Petitioner was not
entitled to have his name removed from the RIL based on the
untimeliness of the district court’s order. Petitioner’s argument
is overruled.
III. Conclusion
It has long been recognized that “fairness can rarely be
obtained by secret, one-sided determination of facts decisive of
rights.” Joint Anti-Fascist Refugee Comm., 341 U.S. at 170, 95 L.
Ed. at 853 (footnote omitted). “The validity and moral authority
of a conclusion largely depend on the mode by which it was
reached . . . [and n]o better instrument has been devised for
arriving at truth than to give a person in jeopardy of serious loss
notice of the case against him and opportunity to meet it.” Id. at
171-72, 95 L. Ed. at 854. “Due process is perhaps the most
majestic concept in our whole constitutional system. While it
contains the garnered wisdom of the past in assuring fundamental
justice, it is also a living principle not confined to past
instances.” Id. at 174, 95 L. Ed. at 855. Because the statutory
procedures for placing an individual on the RIL deprive individuals
of due process, they are unconstitutional under the North Carolina
-28-
Constitution. Accordingly, the orders of the trial court are
reversed.
REVERSED.
Judges HUNTER, JR. and BEASLEY concur.

[Kent Wills]

[Snip the remainder of Greg's latest PROOF that he holds the delusion
that he is exempt from any and all laws. Copyright in this case.]

Be careful what you wish for, Greg. The responsible people of
this country, and likely the world, want children protected from
predators such as you.
That may mean new statues.
Those will narrow the distance between a crime, and tort.
In other words, in one hand of the state will be justice, the
other law, and each is a rock. They will come together, and the space
between shall forever be known as Greg.
You wouldn't have made it were it not for the impotence of Iowa's
court system, Greg. Your case would have gone straight to LE, and the
County Attorney, and together they would have found a way to hang your
child abusing ass. You were very lucky this didn't happen.
If you think civil courts allow room for corruption and the
criminal courts don't, and the criminal court wouldn't have a huge
opportunity for jailing your ass and then dragging out the case for
years, you are even more stupid than I ever dared to imagine. And
given how stupid I imagine you are, that would be saying a great deal
about you.
Imagine had the police forensic specialist(s) talked with Lisa's
little girl. They would have learned about how you hung out in the
bathroom while she showered. How you physically abused her. And so
on.
You are just another jailhouse "constitutionalist," Greg. People
who actually understand the constitution know that you are full of BS.
You support my view that EVERYONE in the U.S. should take the
same test we immigrants take. Not to BECOME a citizen, since being
born here makes one a citizen, but to ensure each person has a basic
understanding of how things actually work.
There is so much you do NOT know, you should be embarrassed.
What would have to happen for you to get your way, and use the
constitution of the United States in the way you claim it's supposed
to work, is for children to become material possessions, not human
beings with sovereign human rights. Note these are HUMAN rights,
which are not always the same as Constitutional rights.
Of course we know your view of children, Greg. They are to be
conditioned, aversively and by bullying, precisely because you believe
they have no human rights of any sort.
But you have been singing that song here for about a decade now,
along with various buddies that have fallen away from the hopelessness
of their bogus cause. Some apparently because they discovered that
they really care for and respect children, and some precisely because
they could not stomach being associated with you in any form.
They know too, that in the end you have a deep love and adoration
of CPS. You wouldn't try to feed families to the maw of the Child
Abuse Industry, as you call it, if you did not.
You CAI-lover, you. LOL
Just as it was proven in Florida, attempts to move child abuse
enforcement to LE increases the number of children removed from the
home. Florida has become a police state in that regard. Of course,
that is what you want, isn't it Greg?
You be right at the recruiting table, ever the little jack booted
thug you are.

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 Monday, February 1, 2010:
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.

Me: Hey, he used your standards.
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson: It's textbook psychopathic
reasoning.

Greg admitting his standards are psychopathic.

In MID
<2afdd85e-3b16-4829...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
Greg writes, "I think Kent plays too many fantasy games
or watches too much fantasy TV." making it very clear he thinks
reality TV shows are fantasy.

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Kent, Do you have any clue what the FAIR USE
>exception to copyright laws really say?
>

Yes. Whereas I'm a writer, though not a very successful one, I'm
well aware of it.

>Or WHY?

Yes.

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>KBW > [Snip the remainder of Greg's latest PROOF
>KBW > that he holds the delusion that he is
>KBW > exempt from any and all laws. �Copyright
>KBW > in this case.]
>
>Kent, How could posting a PUBLIC RECORD of
>a North Carolina state Appeals Court decision
>in the remotest be subject to copyright?
>
>It's a PUBLIC RECORD!

Yes it is. And I've not claimed, directly or through
implication, that it is not.

>
>I thought for a moment that I had posted a
>news article regarding it,

But you can't remember. Got it.
Is memory loss a common side effect of the illegal drugs you
admit you use and abuse (see sig for the VERBATIM quote of your
admission).

>which would fall
>under the FAIR USE exception to copyright law.

If it where a news article, and you quoted the article without
source referenced, or you did reference, but quoted IN FULL, you would
be in violation. The FAIR USE exception makes this vary clear.
Excerpts are fine. Full and entire quoting is not.
No amount of your delusional rants to the contrary will alter
this simple truth.
You did bite again though, allowing me another opportunity to
PROVE you the fool you are.
Not very erudite of you, Greg.

>
>But I didn't even do that!

But you couldn't remember one way or the other, presumably the
result of your admitted use and abuse of illegal drugs.
Obviously you'd have trouble remembering that you violated copy
right of news articles as well, now wouldn't you? Admit it.
You are a fool, throwing out lies (like your lie that you can see
someone's house at a listing that says clearly NO SUCH INFORMATION IS
AVAILABLE) and hoping that everyone reading is a stone cold stupid as
you.

>I posted the NC Appeals Court DECISION itself!
>That's a PUBLIC RECORD, Kent.

Yes, it is, isn't it now? Does this reduce your violations of
copyright?
Please quote the Fair Use exception from an official source, such
as the US Copyright office, and prove your claim.
Hint: this, the newsgroups, isn't an educational source, Greg.
Not unless the owner (no one OWNS Usenet) finds a way to establish it
as such. YOU can't just declare an educational exception to copyright
law.
You have repeatedly LIED about Fair Use exception, Greg. Let's
see you prove your LIES are the truth. I double dog dare ya.
Knowing what a limp impotent member you are let me provide you
with a link and cite.

http://www.copyright.gov/fls/fl102.html

The 1961 Report of the Register of Copyrights on the General
Revision of the U.S. Copyright Law cites examples of activities that
courts have regarded as fair use: �quotation of excerpts in a review
or criticism for purposes of illustration or comment; quotation of
short passages in a scholarly or technical work, for illustration or
clarification of the author�s observations; use in a parody of some of
the content of the work parodied; summary of an address or article,
with brief quotations, in a news report; reproduction by a library of
a portion of a work to replace part of a damaged copy; reproduction by
a teacher or student of a small part of a work to illustrate a lesson;
reproduction of a work in legislative or judicial proceedings or
reports; incidental and fortuitous reproduction, in a newsreel or
broadcast, of a work located in the scene of an event being reported.�

So, Greg, where does your full quotations qualify? Notice the
source above? Have you a more authoritative one that supports your
claim?
Post it, a win for you, or admit you have been caught lying once
again. The choice is yours to make.

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>KBW > [Snip the remainder of Greg's latest PROOF
>KBW > that he holds the delusion that he is
>KBW > exempt from any and all laws. Copyright
>KBW > in this case.]
>

>G > Kent, How could posting a PUBLIC RECORD of
>G > a North Carolina state Appeals Court decision
>G > in the remotest be subject to copyright?
>G >
>G > It's a PUBLIC RECORD!
>
>KBW > Yes it is. And I've not claimed, directly
>KBW > or through implication, that it is not.
>
>Technically, when you said that it was a
>copyright violation that did imply that
>it was NOT a public record.

I made no such implication.

>
>G > I thought for a moment that I had posted a
>G > news article regarding it,
>
>KBW > But you can't remember. Got it.
>
>The phrase "for a moment" would matter here.

It a small degree.

>Did you think that admission of a momentary
>and human lapse about your total dishonesty
>is an opportunity to exploit?

I presented no dishonesty.

>
>KBW > Is memory loss a common side effect
>KBW > of the illegal drugs you admit you
>KBW > use and abuse (see sig for the
>KBW > VERBATIM quote of your admission).
>
>Kent lies and refers to a non existant
>VERBATIM quote that supposedly supports his lie.

I note your post vanished from google's public archive.
Amazing how that happened, huh?
If, as you are trying to imply, I'm in some way libeling you,
please take legal action. Do keep in mind that the truth is a great
defense against a charge of libel. While your post is gone from
Google's public archive, it's still available at other archives. I
know of three others that have it. I presume there are more, but don't
KNOW this.

>
>It's like the broken link to the real
>estate information they hoped nobody
>would actually check.
>

That you're too stupid (unable to learn) to know how to make use
of links in Google doesn't mean it was broken.
That aside, I didn't post it. Your dishonest implication that I
did is noted.

>Kent BLUFFs like that a lot.
>

You imply that I posted the link and then claim I am bluffing?
Are you simply confused, or expressing more of your delusions?

>
>G > which would fall under the FAIR USE
>G > exception to copyright law.
>
>KBW > If it where a news article, and you
>KBW > [ had ] quoted the article without
>KBW > source referenced, or you did
>KBW > reference, but quoted IN FULL, you
>KBW > would be in violation.
>
>KBW > The FAIR USE exception makes this
>KBW > vary clear.
>
>Vary?

I apologize. I meant very.
More proof, if any were needed, that I shouldn't be allowed to
proofread my own posts :)

>
>
>KBW > Excerpts are fine. Full and entire
>KBW > quoting is not.
>
>Please show where that distinction is
>made in the BLACK LETTER LAW, Kent!

I requested YOU prove that you're permitted to quote the totality
of a work.
I do like how you're trying to shift the burden onto me. Clearly
you are so desperate to avoid admitting the truth, you were compelled
to do it.
Still, I PROVE, once again, the truth. You'll note it's the same
citation I used in the past to PROVE your lies about this matter to be
lies. The same cite has worked in the past, so it will likely work
this time as well.

>
>Or applicable caselaw!
>
>Or is this just more of your pretend
>lawyering?
>

That you have the drug induced (unless you lied) delusion that I
do such a thing was accepted long ago. As such, you no longer NEED to
offer proof.

>KBW > No amount of your delusional rants
>KBW > to the contrary will alter
>KBW > this simple truth.
>
>Post the BLACK LETTER law, Kent!
>
>Maybe you should also explain what you
>think the purpose of the Fair Use
>exception is, aside from education.

What I think doesn't matter. What matters is what the law
states.

>
>If that's not too much trouble.
>
>KBW > You did bite again though,
>KBW > allowing me another opportunity
>KBW > to PROVE you the fool you are.
>KBW > Not very erudite of you, Greg.

>
>
>> >But I didn't even do that!
>>
>> But you couldn't remember one way or the other, presumably the
>> result of your admitted use and abuse of illegal drugs.
>> Obviously you'd have trouble remembering that you violated copy
>> right of news articles as well, now wouldn't you? Admit it.
>> You are a fool, throwing out lies (like your lie that you can see
>> someone's house at a listing that says clearly NO SUCH
>> INFORMATION IS AVAILABLE) and hoping that everyone reading
>> is a stone cold stupid as you.
>

>Like this LINK you mean?
>
>http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&um=1&ie=UTF-8&q=8250+Wills+Ct+Rogers,+AR+72756&fb=1&geocode=6811803265370174608,36.318400,-93.932496&ei=FIyJS8mbK4aMNs7VuKYB&sa=X&oi=manybox&resnum=2&ct=10&ved=0CAMQkwMwAg
>
>

No. The link you posted before showed a photo of the area, not a
map. A link to a home you LIE and claim belongs to people related to
me.
Did you call the owners of the home as I suggested, or are you so
afraid of having to face the truth that they are not that you chose to
RUN from my suggestion?
If, as you dishonestly claim, they are my parents, and complaint I
lodge about your calling should fall upon deaf ears. I've granted you
permission.
If, as it seems clear you KNOW, the owners of the property are not
related to me in any form, you will continue to HIDE from the
suggestion, since it's possible you could get into legal trouble.

>G > I posted the NC Appeals Court DECISION itself!
>G > That's a PUBLIC RECORD, Kent.
>
>KBW > Yes, it is, isn't it now? Does this
>KBW > reduce your violations of copyright?
>
>Apparently in this case where you brought it up!

Have I claimed I did not?
At this point of the conversation, we're focusing on your past
violations. Why are you trying to distract from this?

>
>KBW > Please quote the Fair Use exception
>KBW > from an official source, such as the
>KBW > US Copyright office, and prove your claim.
>
>KBW > Hint: this, the newsgroups, isn't an
>KBW > educational source, Greg.
>KBW > Not unless the owner (no one OWNS Usenet)
>KBW > finds a way to establish it as such.
>KBW > YOU can't just declare an educational
>KBW > exception to copyright law.
>
>Did you think that FAIR USE exception
>is only for education, Kent?

Have I claimed such a thing? In reality, I mean.
That I reference one exception can't be seen, by the rational
mind, as a claim that it's the ONLY exception.
YMMV, of course.

>More of your amateur lawyerin' ?

Additional proof that you hold the drug induced delusion that I
am a lawyer of any sort is noted and accepted.

>Kent, While it's not a bad source, you did not
>post the actual FAIR USE exception law.
>
>Why is that?

Admission that you have been caught lying once again is accepted.

>
>Kent, NEWS stories are little more than
>excerpts to begin with,

Nope. They are new stories of events. Long, short, spare, or
fulsome, as in Hemengwayesque, or Buckleyesque, they are complete in
and of themselves. You just make stuff up as you go along, Greg.
You are describing fiction. They, fictional pieces, are presumed
original as to events depicted, or they aren't called fiction.
But that does not make factual events stories unprotected by
copyright. And it doesn't mean your delusion that you are exempt from
the law is reality.

>and I claim the
>FAIR USE exception for DISCUSSION purposes.

You may claim it all you wish. You are deliberately overlooking,
as you know it exists in the black letter law you wish to demand, that
it says quite clearly "excerpts," not entire complete works. A news
article is a complete work, just like a chapter in a book.

>
>NEWS stories generally do not actually
>originate the story they cover.

So if one writes about the bible their writing is not subject to
protection under copyright law because they didn't "originate," the
story covered?
Keep exposing your delusions, Greg.

>
>Good NEWS stories report Who, What, When
>Where, Why and How. They do NOT create
>those elements of their news stories.

See above.
News (they are by definition "NEW") stories are original
creations. An original creation doesn't mean the subject has not been
covered ever before, only that the production itself is the product of
the author.

>
>Why did you bring up your worthless
>bogus interpretation of the copyright
>law in a thread where I posted a
>North Carolina Appeals Court decision?
>

You do a lot of interpretation of law claiming you have the right
to because you are a citizen.

>You really have NO STANDING to question
>my claim of the FAIR USE exception to
>the copyright law.
>

And your standing to interpret it would be superior to mine how?

>The day that somebody WITH STANDING
>challenges me on the FAIR USE EXCEPTION
>I will stand my ground.
>

And you'll pay, or rather, be assigned, a large fine if that
challenger is the owner of the original material. You'll NEVER pay,
since you have NO income save for what Lisa gives you.
With standing is a stupid demand to make. You demand your
opinions be respected, and most often when you have NO STANDING
whatsoever but your delusional opinion

>This does not make me a scofflaw,
>just an educated CITIZEN.

No, it makes you a stupid scofflaw, just like you claim you are
not.
You aren't educated. You are opinionated. Facts mean little to
you when you disagree. You either discount, run away, or reinterpret
without factual basis for your interpretation.
Very like your idiot petition to the court, and interpreting the
constitution for the judge. Just how stupid are you?
What exactly do you think Black Letter Law is, Greg? Your
fiction?
A citation of the law is black letter law;

http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107

See that title and chapter number?

� 107. Limitations on exclusive rights: Fair use40

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use
of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or
phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for
purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching
(including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or
research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether
the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the
factors to be considered shall include �

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use
is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to
the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of
the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of
fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above
factors.

See number 4 above: By extracting an entire article and
reprinting it alone you separate it from two monetary compensation
resources, the sales of the paper it came from, and the reading of
advertising that you circumvent.
See number 3 above: the wording makes very clear, to those
sufficiently erudite (say an eight grade middle school student) only a
"portion," is expected to be used.
Notice the conclusion: The condition for fair use requires ALL
the conditions mentioned to be factors. You cannot pick and chose, no
matter how much your mind may wish to do so.
Well, you can if you are Greg. But that's another story for
another time.
You tried the education one before, and the discussion one. Do
you hold any more delusions or lies you'd like me to expose?

http://www.copyright.gov/circs/circ21.pdf

You'll have a bit of a problem too with how the legislative
branch sees the interpretation of Fair Use by the Judicial branch.

"a. House Report: Introductory Discussion on Section 107
note: The first two paragraphs in this portion of the House
Report are closely similar to the Senate Report. The remainder
of the passage differs substantially in the two Reports. Section 107.
Fair Use General background of the problem The judicial doctrine of
fair use, one of the most important and well-established limitations
on the exclusive right of"

Time for you to HIDE from the truth I've presented Greg. Aside
from offering me MORE chances to PROVE you the fool you are, you
haven't much choice.

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>KBW > Is memory loss a common side effect
>KBW > of the illegal drugs you admit you
>KBW > use and abuse (see sig for the
>KBW > VERBATIM quote of your admission).
>

>G > Kent lies and refers to a non existant
>G > VERBATIM quote that supposedly supports his lie.
>
>KBW > I note your post vanished from
>KBW > google's public archive.
>KBW > Amazing how that happened, huh?
>
>How could a "VERBATIM quote" in your sig
>be deleted by me in Google?

The quote came from one of YOUR posts.

>
>This "VERBATIM quote" you claimed so many times?
>
>Are you sure you know what a VERBATIM quote is, Kent?

Yes.

>
>But wait! You claim it was deleted from the ARCHIVE!

Actually, Google's public archive. Further, I point out it's still
available at other archives. I note you've RUN from that comment.

>
>That's even better!
>
>
>
>
>
>> � � �If, as you are trying to imply, I'm in some way libeling you,

>> please take legal action. �Do keep in mind that the truth is a great
>> defense against a charge of libel. �While your post is gone from
>> Google's public archive, it's still available at other archives.
>

>Please explain how users supposedly delete
>things that are in an archive!
>

Please explain why you are being so dishonest, Greg.
People can "nuke" their own posts from Google's public archive.
You did so with the post I quote where you ADMIT you use and abuse
illegal drugs.

>KBW > I know of three others that have it.
>KBW > I presume there are more, but don't
>KBW > KNOW this.
>
>Nie mog? si? doczeka?!
>

Waldizki.

>
>> >It's like the broken link to the real
>> >estate information they hoped nobody
>> >would actually check.
>>
>> � � � That you're too stupid (unable to learn) to know how to make use
>> of links in Google doesn't mean it was broken. �
>> � � �That aside, I didn't post it. �Your dishonest implication that I
>> did is noted.
>>
>> >Kent BLUFFs like that a lot.
>>
>> � � �You imply that I posted the link and then claim I am bluffing?
>> � � �Are you simply confused, or expressing more of your delusions?
>>
>>
>>
>> >G > which would fall under the FAIR USE
>> >G > exception to copyright law.
>>
>> >KBW > If it where a news article, and you
>> >KBW > [ had ] quoted the article without
>> >KBW > source referenced, or you did
>> >KBW > reference, but quoted IN FULL, you
>> >KBW > would be in violation.
>>
>> >KBW > The FAIR USE exception makes this
>> >KBW > vary clear.
>>
>> >Vary?
>>
>> � � �I apologize. �I meant very.
>> � � �More proof, if any were needed, that I shouldn't be allowed to
>> proofread my own posts :)
>

>Albo chodzi? za darmo!

Your grammar is very bad, Greg. Whatever web site you're using
to translate isn't doing a very good job.

[Greegor]

KBW > Is memory loss a common side effect
KBW > of the illegal drugs you admit you
KBW > use and abuse (see sig for the
KBW > VERBATIM quote of your admission).

G > Kent lies and refers to a non existant
G > VERBATIM quote that supposedly supports his lie.

KBW > I note your post vanished from
KBW > google's public archive.
KBW > Amazing how that happened, huh?

G > How could a "VERBATIM quote" in your sig
G > be deleted by me in Google?

KBW > The quote came from one of YOUR posts.

When did it COME FROM there and why
is it missing if you quoted it VERBATIM?
And how would I have deleted an ARCHIVE of it?
Where was it supposedly ARCHIVED?
What happened to the VERBATIM copy you had?

So where is it?
Did I supposedly delete YOUR messages, too, Kent?

Did you forget that you claimed that you
had a VERBATIM quote of the thing in your
sig? If so, then how could I make it vanish?

G > This "VERBATIM quote" you claimed so many times?
G > Are you sure you know what a VERBATIM quote is, Kent?

KBW > Yes.

OK, So where is it, Kent?

G > But wait!  You claim it was deleted from the ARCHIVE!

KBW > Actually, Google's public archive.
KBW > Further, I point out it's still
KBW > available at other archives.
KBW > I note you've RUN from that comment.

G > That's even better!

KBW > If, as you are trying to imply,
KBW > I'm in some way libeling you,

When you make claims that you can't back up?

You are Kent Bradley Wills, two time felon
and garage burglar. You are a chronic liar.

Go get some sun, Kent.
You're looking rather albino lately.

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>KBW > Is memory loss a common side effect
>KBW > of the illegal drugs you admit you
>KBW > use and abuse (see sig for the
>KBW > VERBATIM quote of your admission).
>
>G > Kent lies and refers to a non existant
>G > VERBATIM quote that supposedly supports his lie.
>
>KBW > I note your post vanished from
>KBW > google's public archive.
>KBW > Amazing how that happened, huh?
>
>G > How could a "VERBATIM quote" in your sig
>G > be deleted by me in Google?
>
>KBW > The quote came from one of YOUR posts.
>
>When did it COME FROM there and why
>is it missing if you quoted it VERBATIM?

Your attempt to distract from the TRUTH, while comical, will
fail.
I C&Ped it from one of your posts. I had the Google archive URL
saved in my favorites so that if I should need to link to it, I could.
Imagine how shocked I wasn't when I chose to check it and found
it gone from Google's public archive.
Too bad for you that it's still available at other archives. I'll
even link to one of the once you post the picture you claim to have of
David dressed as a Nazi and the one you claim to have of me on a pony,
or admit you've been lying about the existence of both the whole time.

>And how would I have deleted an ARCHIVE of it?

Has your drug use made you so stupid you don't know how you nuked
the post from Google's public archive?
Really?

>Where was it supposedly ARCHIVED?

At four public archives of which I am aware. Presumably more.
You nuked it from Google's public archive.

>What happened to the VERBATIM copy you had?

I still have access to the post on other archives.
This is why you'll NEVER take a per se libel case against me. You
KNOW what you wrote and you KNOW I'll be able to prove you wrote it.

>
>So where is it?

Still at the other archives. It's also still stored at Google.
That it's not available to the public doesn't mean it's not still
available with a subpoena.
Time to HIDE from the truth, Greg.

>Did I supposedly delete YOUR messages, too, Kent?

Did I claim, either directly or through implication that you did?
While some of my posts are sent with X-No-Archive: Yes in the
headers, I don't delete any. If they are archived without the No
Archive tag, they stay. Anyone with an interest can verify this
truth.

>
>Did you forget that you claimed that you
>had a VERBATIM quote of the thing in your
>sig?

I not only claim it, I prove it.

From my sig:

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."

The only editing is pointing out who wrote what. Everything else
is verbatim.
Try to distract from this truth by pointing out how your full
name, along with the nick name you gave yourself, doesn't appear in
the original writing, Greg. Quick. It's your ONLY hope of plausible
distraction.

>If so, then how could I make it vanish?

You haven't made the quote vanish, as you present it, stupid.
You're tying to be clever, yet you're failing, as always.

>
>
>G > This "VERBATIM quote" you claimed so many times?
>G > Are you sure you know what a VERBATIM quote is, Kent?
>
>KBW > Yes.
>
>OK, So where is it, Kent?
>

At a few archives of which I have first hand knowledge. I suspect
others as well, but can't state so with any degree of certainty.
Quick, find the others and try to get your post nuked from there
as well.
Not that it would do you any good in the long run. Pretending
this became a legal matter, getting a copy from the archives will be
quite easy. That they are no longer available for public consumption
doesn't mean they aren't still stored. A TRUTH you clearly know, but
are UNABLE to admit.

>G > But wait! �You claim it was deleted from the ARCHIVE!
>
>KBW > Actually, Google's public archive.
>KBW >�Further, I point out it's still
>KBW > available at other archives.
>KBW >�I note you've RUN from that comment.
>
>G > That's even better!
>
>KBW > If, as you are trying to imply,
>KBW > I'm in some way libeling you,
>
>When you make claims that you can't back up?

That would be a good case for per se libel. Unless, of course,
the claims presented are your own claims.
Of course, you can't even pick a state for me to reside in for
more that a few months, so even if the quote is fake, as you
dishonestly try to present, I'd still be safe. You couldn't get me
served notice since you can't figure out where I am.
Add that you've admitted my name isn't Kent in real life and your
trouble grow. You'll need to find the REAL me.
Maybe you should just admit the truth now. Wouldn't you rather
be honest?

>
>You are Kent Bradley Wills, two time felon
>and garage burglar. You are a chronic liar.

Yet you've admitted I have no such felonies and have never caught
me in a lie.
How do you explain those TRUTHS when faced with your LIES?

>
>> >> please take legal action. Do keep in mind that the truth is a great
>> >> defense against a charge of libel. While your post is gone from
>> >> Google's public archive, it's still available at other archives.
>>
>> >Please explain how users supposedly delete
>> >things that are in an archive!
>>
>> � � �Please explain why you are being so dishonest, Greg.
>> � � �People can "nuke" their own posts from Google's public archive.
>> You did so with the post I quote where you ADMIT you use and abuse
>> illegal drugs.
>>
>> >KBW > I know of three others that have it.
>> >KBW > I presume there are more, but don't
>> >KBW > KNOW this.
>>
>> >Nie mog? si? doczeka?!
>>
>> � � Waldizki.
>>
>>
>>

No comment, Greg? I see you quote me, yet you allow it to pass
without comment.
Your admission that I am correct is noted.
Bet you wish you had something better than a web based translator
now, huh?

How would you know? You can't even pick a location for me to
live for more than a few weeks.
Will you claim I'm in Northern California next?

[Greegor]

Why did you claim that the "VERBATIM quote"
was in your sig, even though it wasn't actually
there when you posted your sig over and over?

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

So it's NOT in my sig, yet I post it over and over IN my sig?
How do you rationalize your conflicting claims, Greg?
Or are you trying to use the fact that I listed who wrote what to
try and distract from the TRUTH that you admitted you stalk the
members of alt.friends because you use and abuse illegal drugs?

[Greegor]

G > Why did you claim that the "VERBATIM quote"
G > was in your sig, even though it wasn't actually
G > there when you posted your sig over and over?

KBW > So it's NOT in my sig, yet I post
KBW > it over and over IN my sig?
KBW > How do you rationalize your
KBW > conflicting claims, Greg?

What did it mean when you said that the
"VERBATIM quote" was in your sig, Kent?

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

It means that, save for my listing who wrote what, it's a direct
C&P of the part of one of YOUR posts in which you admit you use and
abuse illegal drugs.
I still maintain that you may have been lying, though you
frequently offers proof that you were accidentally honest. You've
never so much as tried to present the claim you made was anything less
that 100% true.
By YOUR standards, it means it was and is 100% true.
Kind of a bummer for you, huh? I know you HATE it when your own
standards are applied to you, but by now you should realize I'm always
going to do so.

[Greegor]

Kent, What was your part in the sale
of 202 NW College in Ankeny?

Do you deny you claimed a part in that sale?

Who expunged your birthday from
the birthday page YOU webmastered?

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

[snip of items asked and answered MANY times]

Since I've already answered that which I've snipped, multiple
times, please explain why you keep asking them. I believe it's a
result of the use and abuse of illegal drugs you've admitted, but
acknowledge other reasons could be the cause.
Please explain, in as much detail as you feel you need, just why
you use this failed tactic in your attempts to distract from the TRUTH
I consistently present about you.

>Who expunged your birthday from

As you have already admitted, the date listed was never my real
date of birth.

>the birthday page YOU webmastered?

As you already know, having commented on it in the past, the page
vanished when the domain expired. The domain is back up but I'm not
using it.
It's possible the information is still located within the
archives of pcpages' servers, but I can't be bothered to find out.

[Greegor]

On Mar 7, 3:34 pm, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> [snip of items asked and answered MANY times]
>
>      Since I've already answered that which I've snipped, multiple
> times, please explain why you keep asking them.  I believe it's a
> result of the use and abuse of illegal drugs you've admitted, but
> acknowledge other reasons could be the cause.
>     Please explain, in as much detail as you feel you need, just why
> you use this failed tactic in your attempts to distract from the TRUTH
> I consistently present about you.
>
> >Who expunged your birthday from
>
>      As you have already admitted, the date listed was never my real
> date of birth.
>
> >the birthday page YOU webmastered?
>
>      As you already know, having commented on it in the past, the page
> vanished when the domain expired.  The domain is back up but I'm not
> using it.
>      It's possible the information is still located within the
> archives of pcpages' servers, but I can't be bothered to find out.

http://www.legalspring.com/articles/misc-legal/20080327/566781_Kent-Bradley-Wills-D.html

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:wEMvzeKwaFIJ:www.legalspring.com/articles/misc-legal/20080327/566781_Kent-Bradley-Wills-D.html+Kent+Wills+Webmaster&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://www.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html
alt.friends birthday list Names are in no particular order.
Name Birthday Email
1 Nancy (Cranky Cat) Mar 13, 1957 crankycat1 at hotmail.com
2 Sharon (Stinkweed) Apr 6
3 Bianca (Motherbink) Apr 28, 1960 motherbink at yahoo.com
4 Matthew May 12, 1982 troutd at localnet.com
5 Vijay Kumar R Zanvar May 19, 1977 vijoeyz at hotmail.com
6 Warren Davies May 24, 1931 w.davies at comcast.net
7 Gayle (Piper) June 3, 1944 shamrea at hotmail.com
8 Augustin (Jean Claude) Jun 18, 1938 jean.toussaint at bluewin.ch
9 Old Codger(TX) Jul 10 old.codger at overthehill.com
10 Erica Visser Sep 02, 1931 ha.visser at hccnet.nl
11 Doug Best Sep 13, 1950 dbest at mail.geneseeschools.org
12 Bigbazza (Barry)..Oz Oct 15, 1939 big underscore bazz at bigpond
dot net dot au
13 Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) Jan 8, 1969 compuelf at gmail dot
com
Nancy is from Canada.
Sharon is from Wisconsin.
Motherbink lives in Slidell, Louisiana, USA.
Matthew is from Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Vijay is from Bangalore, India.
Warren is from Petaluma, California.
Gayle is from Alabama, USA.
Augustin is in Switzerland.
Old Codger is from Texas.
Erica Visser lives in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Dough Best is from Genesee Michigan.
Bigbazza lives in Sydney, Australia.

http://www.nnseek.com/e/ia.talk.misc/our_kent_wills_is_a_convicted_burglary_felon_363300865m.html#363300865

http://WWW.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html

alt.friends birthday list Names are in no particular order.
13 Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) Jan 8, 1969 compuelf at gmail

http://alt.nntp2http.com/adoption/2008/08/a91af7682c78247592ea1de5b0b90c19.html

http://www.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html
alt.friends birthday list Names are in no particular order.
13 Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) Jan 8, 1969 compuelf at gmail
[ Kent altered this in late July 2008 (or had somebody else) ]

http://www.advancedlegalhelp.com/articles/misc-legal/20080312/563984_Betty-argues-specifi.html

4/14/2008 7:57:08 AM
[ Posted THREE MONTHS BEFORE Kent edited it out ]

Here's his birthday, from Kent's OWN alt.friends birthday web page.
http://www.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html
alt.friends birthday list Names are in no particular order.
13 Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) Jan 8, 1969 compuelf at gmail

[ Also quoted by dragonsgirl" 4/15/2008 11:50:12 PM
THREE MONTHS before it was ""mysteriously"" expunged.]

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry)
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 7, 3:34�pm, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> [snip of items asked and answered MANY times]
>>
>> � � �Since I've already answered that which I've snipped, multiple
>> times, please explain why you keep asking them. �I believe it's a
>> result of the use and abuse of illegal drugs you've admitted, but
>> acknowledge other reasons could be the cause.
>> � � Please explain, in as much detail as you feel you need, just why
>> you use this failed tactic in your attempts to distract from the TRUTH
>> I consistently present about you.

Question to Greg:
Why are you refusing, again, to address the point raised?
By YOUR standards, you have offered the tacit admission that the
reason you bring up that which has been answered, multiple times, is
due to your use and abuse of illegal drugs.
Do you regret DEMANDING that the tacit admission standard be
applied to others yet?
Way to go, stupid.

>>
>> >Who expunged your birthday from
>>
>> � � �As you have already admitted, the date listed was never my real
>> date of birth.
>>
>> >the birthday page YOU webmastered?
>>
>> � � �As you already know, having commented on it in the past, the page
>> vanished when the domain expired. �The domain is back up but I'm not
>> using it.

I should have checked before making the above claim. The domain,
pcpages.com, was back up once, but as Greg allows anyone with an
interest to verify, it expired again.
In Greg's mind, this will mean I've expunged the site. He makes
the claim near the end of the post to which I am replying. Greg's
admitted use and abuse of illegal drugs gives him many delusions.

>> � � �It's possible the information is still located within the

>> archives of pcpages' servers, but I can't be bothered to find out.
>
>
>
>http://www.legalspring.com/articles/misc-legal/20080327/566781_Kent-Bradley-Wills-D.html
>

Whereas it was PROVED you edited the list (unless you wish to
admit someone else did and you posted it without checking), linking to
your edited list only serves to prove how desperate you are to
continue lying.
Why do you have the overpowering psychological NEED to lie, Greg?
Serious question.

>http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:wEMvzeKwaFIJ:www.legalspring.com/articles/misc-legal/20080327/566781_Kent-Bradley-Wills-D.html+Kent+Wills+Webmaster&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us
>

Again, posting a link to that which you edited, and that which
you have admitted isn't about me doesn't prove your current claim. It
only adds more proof you are psychologically UNABLE to be honest,
unless you make a mistake or are forced. Not that any more proof is
needed.

>http://www.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html
>alt.friends birthday list Names are in no particular order.
>Name Birthday Email
>1 Nancy (Cranky Cat) Mar 13, 1957 crankycat1 at hotmail.com
>2 Sharon (Stinkweed) Apr 6
>3 Bianca (Motherbink) Apr 28, 1960 motherbink at yahoo.com
>4 Matthew May 12, 1982 troutd at localnet.com
>5 Vijay Kumar R Zanvar May 19, 1977 vijoeyz at hotmail.com
>6 Warren Davies May 24, 1931 w.davies at comcast.net
>7 Gayle (Piper) June 3, 1944 shamrea at hotmail.com
>8 Augustin (Jean Claude) Jun 18, 1938 jean.toussaint at bluewin.ch
>9 Old Codger(TX) Jul 10 old.codger at overthehill.com
>10 Erica Visser Sep 02, 1931 ha.visser at hccnet.nl
>11 Doug Best Sep 13, 1950 dbest at mail.geneseeschools.org
>12 Bigbazza (Barry)..Oz Oct 15, 1939 big underscore bazz at bigpond
>dot net dot au
>13 Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) Jan 8, 1969 compuelf at gmail dot
>com

You've already admitted you stalk the members of alt.friends due
to your use and abuse of illegal drugs. I quote your open admission
in my sig. Aside from listing who wrote what, it's a direct copy and
paste of one of your posts.
While it's nice that you wish to offer more PROOF that you're
nothing but a drug addled loser, it's no longer necessary. No one has
tried to counter the truth of your admission.

>Nancy is from Canada.
>Sharon is from Wisconsin.
>Motherbink lives in Slidell, Louisiana, USA.
>Matthew is from Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
>Vijay is from Bangalore, India.
>Warren is from Petaluma, California.
>Gayle is from Alabama, USA.
>Augustin is in Switzerland.
>Old Codger is from Texas.
>Erica Visser lives in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
>Dough Best is from Genesee Michigan.
>Bigbazza lives in Sydney, Australia.
>
>http://www.nnseek.com/e/ia.talk.misc/our_kent_wills_is_a_convicted_burglary_felon_363300865m.html#363300865

Linking to your own post only serves to prove that you were
lying. Of course, this truth is so accepted, NO ONE has ever tried to
counter it.

>
>http://WWW.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html
>

From the URL:

The domain pcpages.com has expired. If you owned this domain, please
contact your domain registration service provider for further
assistance. If you need help identifying your service provider, visit
http://tucowsdomains.com/help/.

Looks like the people in charge of pcpages has allowed the domain
to expire again.
Will you claim, once again, that this means I expunged the Friends
web site? You make the claim below, so you'll have to again. Either
that or admit another of your MANY drug induced lies has been exposed.

>alt.friends birthday list Names are in no particular order.
>13 Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) Jan 8, 1969 compuelf at gmail
>

That NEVER appeared on the site. You edited what was listed, as
was proved a very long time ago. People did visit the site and they
saw that the name and date of birth were not what you claimed and
claim.
The original listed my name as Brian Jones. I didn't commit the
date of birth I listed to memory, but I think it was July something of
1974. I do recall it was the early 70's.
If you have the original list, not the one PROVED to have been
edited, you are free to post the actual date listed.
Will you be man enough to post the original, if you have it, or
will you once again PROVE you are psychologically UNABLE to be honest,
except by accident or force?
If you only posses the edited list, please state so.

>
>http://alt.nntp2http.com/adoption/2008/08/a91af7682c78247592ea1de5b0b90c19.html
>

Trying to use that which was PROVED to be a lie to support your
lie isn't going to work, Greg. Not to any rational mind.
YM WILL V, of course.

>http://www.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html
>alt.friends birthday list Names are in no particular order.
>13 Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) Jan 8, 1969 compuelf at gmail
>[ Kent altered this in late July 2008 (or had somebody else) ]
>

Why do you lie?
I've asked this of you MANY time, yet you have never answered.

>http://www.advancedlegalhelp.com/articles/misc-legal/20080312/563984_Betty-argues-specifi.html
>

Wow. Betty quoting you, showing the flaws in your drug inspired
claims, then asking you to prove your claim that I am the same Kent
Wills you claimed I am.
You have since admitted my name in real life isn't Kent and that
the information you post as if it was and is about me isn't about me.

>4/14/2008 7:57:08 AM
>[ Posted THREE MONTHS BEFORE Kent edited it out ]

How do you propose I can edit out Betty's posts? And if I did
edit out Betty's post, how do you explain your ability to link to it?
Do you even think before you post, or are you too stoned to do
so? Serious question.

>
>Here's his birthday, from Kent's OWN alt.friends birthday web page.
>http://www.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html
>alt.friends birthday list Names are in no particular order.
>13 Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) Jan 8, 1969 compuelf at gmail

The text was PROVED, long ago, to have been edited.
Since it was proved, why do you continue to present it as if it
wasn't proved to have been edited? Serious question, Greg.

>
>[ Also quoted by dragonsgirl" 4/15/2008 11:50:12 PM
>THREE MONTHS before it was ""mysteriously"" expunged.]

That she quoted YOUR lie does not equate to her making the claim,
no matter how much your drug addled mind DEMANDS you claim it to be
so.
BTW, the domain no longer being active isn't an indication of
anyone expunging anything. I realize your admitted use and abuse of
illegal drugs causes you numerous delusions, but contrary to what you
must believe (unless you're lying), I don't have the authority or
power to cause the expiration of a domain. Really. Only time, and a
lack of desire to renew on the part of the PTB within the domain, can
do that.
As much as you HATE it, this is the truth.
Now be a good little monkey and either RUN from the truth I've
presented or attempt to distract from it. You ALWAYS do one or the
other, since admitting the truth is IMPOSSIBLE for you. At least
intentionally.

[Greegor]

KBW > Question to Greg:
KBW > Why are you refusing, again, to address
KBW > the point raised? By YOUR standards,
KBW > you have offered the tacit admission
KBW > that the reason you bring up that
KBW > which has been answered, multiple times,
KBW > is due to your use and abuse of
KBW > illegal drugs.

Kent Wills classical fallacy G.1 and G.2
You often declare yourself victorious.
You're like "Baghdad Bob" in that way.

KBW > Do you regret DEMANDING that the tacit
KBW > admission standard be applied to
KBW > others yet? Way to go, stupid.

G > Who expunged your birthday from

KBW > As you have already admitted, the date
KBW > listed was never my real date of birth.

> >> >the birthday page YOU webmastered?
>
> >>      As you already know, having commented on it in the past, the page
> >> vanished when the domain expired.  The domain is back up but I'm not
> >> using it.

KBW > I should have checked before making
KBW > the above claim.  The domain, pcpages.com,
KBW > was back up once, but as Greg allows
KBW > anyone with an interest to verify, it
KBW > expired again.
KBW > In Greg's mind, this will mean I've expunged the site.

Kent, You had your name and birthday removed
from the list long BEFORE the domain lapsed.

KBW > He makes the claim

The claims about the doain lapse are all yours.

My claim is about your removal of your
name and birthday from the list BEFORE
the domain lapse.

> near the end of the post to which I am replying.  Greg's
> admitted use and abuse of illegal drugs gives him many delusions.

> >>      It's possible the information is still located within the
> >> archives of pcpages' servers, but I can't be bothered to find out.
>

> >http://www.legalspring.com/articles/misc-legal/20080327/566781_Kent-B...
>
KBW > Whereas it was PROVED you edited the list

Lie. Kent is constantly declaring himself victorious.

KBW > (unless you wish to

> admit someone else did and you posted it without checking), linking to
> your edited list only serves to prove how desperate you are to
> continue lying.

The archive of posts and references
to the birthday list proves you are
telling lies, Kent.

KBW > Why do you have the overpowering psychological
KBW > NEED to lie, Greg? Serious question.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/loaded.html

> >http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:wEMvzeKwaFIJ:www.legalspring.com/...

>
>      Again, posting a link to that which you edited, and that which
> you have admitted isn't about me doesn't prove your current claim.  It
> only adds more proof you are psychologically UNABLE to be honest,
> unless you make a mistake or are forced. Not that any more proof is
> needed.

Kent, Usenet posts prior to late July 2008
and shortly after, reflect the truth of
what your birthday page said.

You weren't in the habit of using x-no-archive
then but even if you deleted some of
the messages where you acknowledged
the late July change, they probably
exist, reflected in others posts quoting you.

> >http://www.nnseek.com/e/ia.talk.misc/our_kent_wills_is_a_convicted_bu...

>
>      Linking to your own post only serves to prove that you were
> lying.  Of course, this truth is so accepted, NO ONE has ever tried to
> counter it.
>
>
>
> >http://WWW.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html
>
>      From the URL:
>
> The domain pcpages.com has expired. If you owned this domain, please
> contact your domain registration service provider for further

> assistance. If you need help identifying your service provider, visithttp://tucowsdomains.com/help/.

>
>      Looks like the people in charge of pcpages has allowed the domain
> to expire again.
>     Will you claim, once again, that this means I expunged the Friends
> web site?  You make the claim below, so you'll have to again. Either
> that or admit another of your MANY drug induced lies has been exposed.
>
> >alt.friends birthday list Names are in no particular order.

13 Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) Jan 8, 1969 compuelf at gmail

KBW > That NEVER appeared on the site.  You
KBW > edited what was listed, as was proved
KBW > a very long time ago.

Got a LINK?

KBW > People did visit the site and
KBW > they saw that the name and date of birth
KBW > were not what you claimed and claim.

Please LINK to their posts!
You liar.

> The original listed my name as Brian Jones.
> I didn't commit the date of birth I listed
> to memory, but I think it was July something of
> 1974.  I do recall it was the early 70's.
> If you have the original list, not the one PROVED to have been
> edited, you are free to post the actual date listed.  
> Will you be man enough to post the original, if you have it, or
> will you once again PROVE you are psychologically UNABLE to be honest,
> except by accident or force?
> If you only posses the edited list, please state so.

> >http://alt.nntp2http.com/adoption/2008/08/a91af7682c78247592ea1de5b0b...

>
>      Trying to use that which was PROVED to be a lie to support your
> lie isn't going to work, Greg.  Not to any rational mind.
>      YM WILL V, of course.
>
> >http://www.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html
> >alt.friends birthday list   Names are in no particular order.
> >13  Kent Wills (Your Webmaster)  Jan 8, 1969  compuelf at gmail
> >[ Kent altered this in late July 2008 (or had somebody else) ]
>
>      Why do you lie?
>      I've asked this of you MANY time, yet you have never answered.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question

http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/loaded.html

> >http://www.advancedlegalhelp.com/articles/misc-legal/20080312/563984_...

>
>     Wow.  Betty quoting you, showing the flaws in your drug inspired
> claims, then asking you to prove your claim that I am the same Kent
> Wills you claimed I am.
>     You have since admitted my name in real life isn't Kent and that
> the information you post as if it was and is about me isn't about me.
>
> >4/14/2008 7:57:08 AM
> >[ Posted THREE MONTHS BEFORE Kent edited it out ]
>
>      How do you propose I can edit out Betty's posts?  And if I did
> edit out Betty's post, how do you explain your ability to link to it?
>      Do you even think before you post, or are you too stoned to do
> so?  Serious question.
>
>
>
> >Here's his birthday, from Kent's OWN alt.friends birthday web page.
> >http://www.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html
> >alt.friends birthday list Names are in no particular order.
> >13 Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) Jan 8, 1969 compuelf at gmail

KBW > The text was PROVED, long ago, to have
KBW > been edited. Since it was proved, why
KBW > do you continue to present it as if it
KBW > wasn't proved to have been edited?
KBW > Serious question, Greg.

G.1. and G.2.

Kent's stock deceptions/logical fallacies

F. Ad Hominem calling opponents
1. Drunks or drunk drivers
2. Druggies or on drugs
3. Mentally Ill often as result of drug use
G. Res Judicata
1. Already conceded to Kent's argument
2. Question already asked and answered.
H. Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence
1a. Missing Middle, False Dilemma, False Dichotomy, bifurcation
1b. Fallacy of Complex Question - loaded question with presupposition
2. Withholding proof saying it's already on the table
3. ""Check is in the mail"" as proof of something.
4. Proof held hostage awaiting opponents proof on something else
J. Lie claimed to be based on opponents standards - a type of strawman

Claim that a lack of proof disproves something.
Claim that a lack of proof proves something.
Flat out outright lies.

It's as if Kent is an automation that is WAY too simple.

> >[ Also quoted by dragonsgirl"  4/15/2008 11:50:12 PM
> >THREE MONTHS before it was ""mysteriously"" expunged.]

KBW > That she quoted YOUR lie does not equate
KBW > to her making the claim, no matter how
KBW > much your drug addled mind DEMANDS you
KBW > claim it to be so.

Please LINK and quote to where the
content of YOUR birthday page was
challenged before late July of 2008.

Betty didn't challenge what was
self evident at the time.

Did you deny what the birthday page
said WHILE it was actually up, Kent?

> BTW, the domain no longer being active isn't an indication of
> anyone expunging anything.  I realize your admitted use and abuse of
> illegal drugs causes you numerous delusions, but contrary to what you
> must believe (unless you're lying), I don't have the authority or
> power to cause the expiration of a domain.  Really.  Only time, and a
> lack of desire to renew on the part of the PTB within the domain, can
> do that.
>      As much as you HATE it, this is the truth.
>      Now be a good little monkey and either RUN from the truth I've
> presented or attempt to distract from it.  You ALWAYS do one or the
> other, since admitting the truth is IMPOSSIBLE for you.  At least
> intentionally.

KBW > A select number of items that really are about

Kent is such a liar that even HE
feels he has to add the words
"really are" to try to convince
people that he's telling the truth.

Kent is like the boy who cried Wolf!

Kent tends to tell bits of truth
ONLY as a means to fob off lies.

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse
Registry)<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>KBW > Question to Greg:
>KBW > Why are you refusing, again, to address
>KBW > the point raised? By YOUR standards,
>KBW > you have offered the tacit admission
>KBW > that the reason you bring up that
>KBW > which has been answered, multiple times,
>KBW > is due to your use and abuse of
>KBW > illegal drugs.
>
>Kent Wills classical fallacy G.1 and G.2
>You often declare yourself victorious.
>You're like "Baghdad Bob" in that way.

You're the one who claimed the lack of a denial was and is equal
to a tacit admission that the claim is true.

>
>
>KBW > Do you regret DEMANDING that the tacit
>KBW > admission standard be applied to
>KBW > others yet? Way to go, stupid.
>
>G > Who expunged your birthday from
>
>KBW >�As you have already admitted, the date
>KBW > listed was never my real date of birth.
>
>> >> >the birthday page YOU webmastered?
>>
>> >> � � �As you already know, having commented on it in the past, the page
>> >> vanished when the domain expired. �The domain is back up but I'm not
>> >> using it.
>
>KBW > I should have checked before making
>KBW > the above claim. �The domain, pcpages.com,
>KBW > was back up once, but as Greg allows
>KBW > anyone with an interest to verify, it
>KBW > expired again.
>KBW > In Greg's mind, this will mean I've expunged the site.
>
>Kent, You had your name and birthday removed
>from the list long BEFORE the domain lapsed.

My real name and real birthday were never on the site. You
openly admitted my name in real life isn't Kent and that the
information you post, including the date of birth, isn't about me.
Unless you are going to claim you lied with each admission, you
must admit you lie when you make the claims they are true. You've
offered yourself no other options, Greg, since the conflicting claims
can't all be true.

>
>KBW > He makes the claim
>
>The claims about the doain lapse are all yours.

What is a doain?
If you mean domain, anyone with an interest may verify the truth
by visiting http://www.pcpages.com
Unless you fear the truth that another of your lies has been
exposed, you'll visit and report on what you see.

>
>My claim is about your removal of your
>name and birthday from the list BEFORE
>the domain lapse.

You claimed I expunged the site. Your own links PROVE you the
liar you are. The entire domain expired, resulting in all pages going
away.
You may LIE about this as often as your mind requires. As with
all your other claims, your lies will remain lies.

>
>> near the end of the post to which I am replying. �Greg's
>> admitted use and abuse of illegal drugs gives him many delusions.
>
>
>> >> � � �It's possible the information is still located within the
>> >> archives of pcpages' servers, but I can't be bothered to find out.
>>
>> >http://www.legalspring.com/articles/misc-legal/20080327/566781_Kent-B...
>>
>KBW > Whereas it was PROVED you edited the list
>
>Lie. Kent is constantly declaring himself victorious.

It was proved well over a year ago. Your dishonest denial will
never alter this truth.
If you didn't edit it, then someone else did and you posted it
without checking.
Which is the case, Greg?

>
>KBW > (unless you wish to
>> admit someone else did and you posted it without checking), linking to
>> your edited list only serves to prove how desperate you are to
>> continue lying.
>
>The archive of posts and references
>to the birthday list proves you are
>telling lies, Kent.

The only posts you reference are yours, or posts quoting your
lies. Whereas you are psychologically UNABLE to be honest, unless you
make a mistake or are forced, you only manage to further prove your
lies.

>
>KBW > Why do you have the overpowering psychological
>KBW > NEED to lie, Greg? Serious question.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
>
>http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/loaded.html

Avoidance noted.
Now that you have that out of the way, please address the
question. I've exposed so many of your lies that it's clear you do
have an overpowering psychological NEED to lie. I would like to know
why.
It's a matter of curiosity on my part. I keep proving you a liar,
and you keep posting the same lies.

>
>
>> >http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:wEMvzeKwaFIJ:www.legalspring.com/...
>>
>> � � �Again, posting a link to that which you edited, and that which
>> you have admitted isn't about me doesn't prove your current claim. �It
>> only adds more proof you are psychologically UNABLE to be honest,
>> unless you make a mistake or are forced. Not that any more proof is
>> needed.
>
>Kent, Usenet posts prior to late July 2008
>and shortly after, reflect the truth of
>what your birthday page said.
>

Your own posts only show that you have been lying about the
contents of the site since then.

>You weren't in the habit of using x-no-archive
>then but even if you deleted some of
>the messages where you acknowledged
>the late July change, they probably
>exist, reflected in others posts quoting you.

I make no such acknowledgement.
Prove me wrong. If I used Gregborn Logic� and nuked any (I
didn't, but let's pretend it's possible), link to any posts that quote
them.
Please don't link to any of your, or Ken's, posts where you
committed the act of post editing.

Yes.
As has been the requirement for over a year, once you post the
picture you claim to posses of David dressed as a Nazi, and the one
you claim to posses of me on a pony, or admit you've been lying about
the existence of both the whole time, I'll post it.
Aside from one time when I offered to suspend the requirement (and
you RAN from it), this requirement has been in place for over a year.
Still you make requests. Of course you do this in hopes of conning
anyone reading into thinking I'm being less than honest.
Your con has been exposed so often I have to wonder why you
continue to use it.

>
>KBW > People did visit the site and
>KBW > they saw that the name and date of birth
>KBW > were not what you claimed and claim.
>
>Please LINK to their posts!
>You liar.
>

As soon as you post the picture you claim to posses of David
dressed as a Nazi and the picture you claim to posses of me on a pony,
or admit you've been lying about the existence of both the whole time,
I'll do so with a smile.
It's up to you, Greg.

>
>> The original listed my name as Brian Jones.
>> I didn't commit the date of birth I listed
>> to memory, but I think it was July something of
>> 1974. �I do recall it was the early 70's.
>> If you have the original list, not the one PROVED to have been
>> edited, you are free to post the actual date listed. �
>> Will you be man enough to post the original, if you have it, or
>> will you once again PROVE you are psychologically UNABLE to be honest,
>> except by accident or force?
>> If you only posses the edited list, please state so.
>
>> >http://alt.nntp2http.com/adoption/2008/08/a91af7682c78247592ea1de5b0b...
>>
>> � � �Trying to use that which was PROVED to be a lie to support your
>> lie isn't going to work, Greg. �Not to any rational mind.
>> � � �YM WILL V, of course.
>>
>> >http://www.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html
>> >alt.friends birthday list � Names are in no particular order.
>> >13 �Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) �Jan 8, 1969 �compuelf at gmail
>> >[ Kent altered this in late July 2008 (or had somebody else) ]
>>
>> � � �Why do you lie?
>> � � �I've asked this of you MANY time, yet you have never answered.
>
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Loaded_question
>
>http://www.sjsu.edu/depts/itl/graphics/adhom/loaded.html
>

Continued avoidance noted.

>
>> >http://www.advancedlegalhelp.com/articles/misc-legal/20080312/563984_...
>>
>> � � Wow. �Betty quoting you, showing the flaws in your drug inspired
>> claims, then asking you to prove your claim that I am the same Kent
>> Wills you claimed I am.
>> � � You have since admitted my name in real life isn't Kent and that
>> the information you post as if it was and is about me isn't about me.
>>
>> >4/14/2008 7:57:08 AM
>> >[ Posted THREE MONTHS BEFORE Kent edited it out ]
>>
>> � � �How do you propose I can edit out Betty's posts? �And if I did
>> edit out Betty's post, how do you explain your ability to link to it?
>> � � �Do you even think before you post, or are you too stoned to do
>> so? �Serious question.
>>
>>
>>
>> >Here's his birthday, from Kent's OWN alt.friends birthday web page.
>> >http://www.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html
>> >alt.friends birthday list Names are in no particular order.
>> >13 Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) Jan 8, 1969 compuelf at gmail
>
>KBW > The text was PROVED, long ago, to have
>KBW > been edited. Since it was proved, why
>KBW > do you continue to present it as if it
>KBW > wasn't proved to have been edited?
>KBW > Serious question, Greg.
>
>G.1. and G.2.

Lie as often as your mental defect demand of you, Greg. The
truth will remain the truth and a figurative thorn in your side.

>
>Kent's stock deceptions/logical fallacies
>
>F. Ad Hominem calling opponents
> 1. Drunks or drunk drivers
> 2. Druggies or on drugs
> 3. Mentally Ill often as result of drug use
>G. Res Judicata
> 1. Already conceded to Kent's argument
> 2. Question already asked and answered.
>H. Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence
> 1a. Missing Middle, False Dilemma, False Dichotomy, bifurcation
> 1b. Fallacy of Complex Question - loaded question with presupposition
> 2. Withholding proof saying it's already on the table
> 3. ""Check is in the mail"" as proof of something.
> 4. Proof held hostage awaiting opponents proof on something else
>J. Lie claimed to be based on opponents standards - a type of strawman
>
>Claim that a lack of proof disproves something.
>Claim that a lack of proof proves something.
>Flat out outright lies.
>
>It's as if Kent is an automation that is WAY too simple.
>

I've already countered each of the LIES presented above. Given
this truth, I ask, again, why you present them?

>
>> >[ Also quoted by dragonsgirl" �4/15/2008 11:50:12 PM
>> >THREE MONTHS before it was ""mysteriously"" expunged.]
>
>KBW > That she quoted YOUR lie does not equate
>KBW > to her making the claim, no matter how
>KBW > much your drug addled mind DEMANDS you
>KBW > claim it to be so.
>
>Please LINK and quote to where the
>content of YOUR birthday page was
>challenged before late July of 2008.

You offered the link, Greg.
Are you admitting, again, that the information you post as if it
is about me is not about me?

>
>Betty didn't challenge what was
>self evident at the time.

At least you admit she didn't challenge your lies, since they were
self evident. Especially to anyone who visited the site.
She did point out the flaws in your logic and ask you to prove
your claim.
Wait, you may mean that when anyone asks you to prove a claim they
are challenging your self evident lies. Is that the claim you are
presenting?

>
>Did you deny what the birthday page
>said WHILE it was actually up, Kent?
>

No.
I did, and do, deny the edited name and date you've posted.
Outside of your continued PROOF that your admitted use and abuse of
illegal drugs has made you as stupid as you present, these aren't the
same thing.

>
>> BTW, the domain no longer being active isn't an indication of
>> anyone expunging anything. �I realize your admitted use and abuse of
>> illegal drugs causes you numerous delusions, but contrary to what you
>> must believe (unless you're lying), I don't have the authority or
>> power to cause the expiration of a domain. �Really. �Only time, and a
>> lack of desire to renew on the part of the PTB within the domain, can
>> do that.
>> � � �As much as you HATE it, this is the truth.
>> � � �Now be a good little monkey and either RUN from the truth I've
>> presented or attempt to distract from it. �You ALWAYS do one or the
>> other, since admitting the truth is IMPOSSIBLE for you. �At least
>> intentionally.
>
>
>KBW > A select number of items that really are about
>
>Kent is such a liar that even HE
>feels he has to add the words
>"really are" to try to convince
>people that he's telling the truth.

They are about you. Either directly (there is PROOF that you
made the claims) or through your standard that everyone with the same
first and last name are all the same person.
If you think your standard is unfair, perhaps you should cease
DEMANDING it be held to others, and make apologies for your actions.

>
>Kent is like the boy who cried Wolf!

In what way?
The boy who cried wolf was lying. I am not.
Unless you are admitting that when you claim David is someone he
is not, you are lying. Unless you are, once again, admitting that the
information you post as if it's about me is a lie.
Again, the sig contains things that are directly about you, or
about you when your own standards are applied.

>
>Kent tends to tell bits of truth
>ONLY as a means to fob off lies.

You simply can't be honest. Not intentionally.
I see you're still using and abusing illegal drugs, Greg. Unless
you lied, you admitted you stalk the members of alt.friends due to
your use and abuse of illegal drugs. I have your admission of this as
a part of my sig.
Aside from my pointing out who wrote what, it's a direct copy &
paste of the pertinent part of your own post.

[Greegor]

G > Kent, You had your name and birthday removed
G > from the list long BEFORE the domain lapsed.

KBW > My real name and real birthday were never on the site.

And the posts you made about selling
the apartment building at 202 NW College?

Have you disavowed those comments as well?

They connect you with Fred and Janet Wills
who sold it to SWEENEYS.

What a COINCIDENCE that SWEENEY RENTALS
had to sue you in small claims court in 1999!

LOL

KBW > You openly admitted my name in real life isn't Kent

Another LIE. Got a LINK?

IF you were not Kent Bradley Wills, then
why would you be so concerned about your
""Fake ID"" working so well?

Why would you go to all the trouble to
create such a good ""Fake ID"" and then
go to this much trouble to try to ruin
your ""Fake ID"" ??

> and that the
> information you post, including the date of birth, isn't about me.
>      Unless you are going to claim you lied with each admission, you
> must admit you lie when you make the claims they are true.  You've
> offered yourself no other options, Greg, since the conflicting claims
> can't all be true.

KBW > He makes the claim

G > The claims about the domain lapse are all yours.

>      What is a doain?
>      If you mean domain, anyone with an interest may verify the truth

> by visitinghttp://www.pcpages.com

>      Unless you fear the truth that another of your lies has been
> exposed, you'll visit and report on what you see.

G > My claim is about your removal of your
G > name and birthday from the list BEFORE
G > the domain lapse.

KBW >      You claimed I expunged the site.

No, just your name and birthday, from it.

KBW > Your own links PROVE you the

Even if that were true, which it isn't,
didn't you forget about what was posted
about it to usenet BEFORE then?

G > Got a LINK?

>      Yes.
>      As has been the requirement for over a year, once you post the
> picture you claim to posses of David dressed as a Nazi, and the one
> you claim to posses of me on a pony, or admit you've been lying about
> the existence of both the whole time, I'll post it.
>     Aside from one time when I offered to suspend the requirement (and
> you RAN from it), this requirement has been in place for over a year.
> Still you make requests.  Of course you do this in hopes of conning
> anyone reading into thinking I'm being less than honest.
>      Your con has been exposed so often I have to wonder why you
> continue to use it.

Kent, Why do you think that withholding
proof of what you say would help your
arguments or hurt my arguments?

I think it's silly that you refuse
to prove anything you say because
I once had to withold proof from you.

KBW > People did visit the site and
KBW > they saw that the name and date of birth
KBW > were not what you claimed and claim.

G > Please LINK to their posts!
G > You liar.

KBW > As soon as you post the picture you
KBW > claim to posses of David dressed as
KBW > a Nazi and the picture you claim to
KBW > posses of me on a pony,
KBW > or admit you've been lying about the
KBW > existence of both the whole time,
KBW > I'll do so with a smile.
KBW > It's up to you, Greg.  

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>G > Kent, You had your name and birthday removed
>G > from the list long BEFORE the domain lapsed.
>
>KBW > My real name and real birthday were never on the site.
>
>And the posts you made about selling
>the apartment building at 202 NW College?
>

Also never on the site. Your claim that it ever was is yet
another of your MANY lies.

>Have you disavowed those comments as well?
>

No such comments ever appeared on the Friends' web site. Feel
free to prove any did, a win for you, or admit another of your MANY
pathological lies has been exposed.
The choice is yours, Greg.

>They connect you with Fred and Janet Wills
>who sold it to SWEENEYS.

First, no such connection appeared anywhere on the site. I
understand you're DESPERATE to distract from the truth I've presented
that my real name and date of birth NEVER appeared on the site, but
I'm going to continue to bring you back to the matter at hand.
Second, your deceptive attempt to distract depends on the claim
of a "man" so mentally screwed up that he makes you look like the
poster boy for prefect mental health
"Daniel Goldblum" (not his real name) actually claimed in
alt.binaries.chatter that I flew to England for the purpose of keying
his car.
While I might be motivated to visit England, the purpose wouldn't
be to key anyone's vehicle.
When another poster exposed his lie, showing that the incident in
question involved only people from England, none of which were
"Daniel," he then changed to claiming I was in daily contact with the
perp and I got him to do it as a "warning" of some sort.
"Daniel" never did admit his vehicle was never involved in the
matter.
What's really funny about your source is that he claimed if I so
much as mention the name Daniel Goldblum, Daniel Savage and/or Doc
Savage, I would go to prison.
You'll note I've mentioned it MANY times over the past five
years. No incarceration for me. I don't think he was referencing my
missionary visits to Iowa's prisons. That he had to post a fake
E-mail (neither person listed worked for the DoC for Arkansas in any
capacity) should have been a clue to his likely meaning.

>
>What a COINCIDENCE that SWEENEY RENTALS
>had to sue you in small claims court in 1999!

They've never done so.
By way of contrast, you were sued, multiple times, in order for
your land lord to collect rent that was due.

>
>LOL
>
>KBW > You openly admitted my name in real life isn't Kent
>
>Another LIE. Got a LINK?

Yes. And you KNOW the requirement for me to honor your request.

>
>IF you were not Kent Bradley Wills, then
>why would you be so concerned about your
>""Fake ID"" working so well?

Your attempt to distract from the TRUTH that I've exposed you as
the pro-CPS liar you are isn't even entertaining anymore.
My concern is exclusively exposing you for the pro-CPS shill you
are. While I agree such an agency is necessary (there are adults who
should NEVER be allowed to care for a child), I don't see them as you
do: An agency that can do NO wrong.
How many families have you PERMANENTLY ruined with your advice,
Greg? How may parents did you CON into thinking you were on their
side, all the while taking steps to ensure they would fail?
Why, when ever anyone beat CPS, did you almost instantly begin to
attack them, to the degree possible on-line, for winning?
And to think, you could still be doing it. I left ASCPS. You
could have had the last word and continued conning families. Your
TRUE allegiance would never have been exposed. At least not by me.
Sadly, your admitted use and abuse of illegal drugs prevents you
from seeing the proverbial big picture.

>
>Why would you go to all the trouble to
>create such a good ""Fake ID"" and then
>go to this much trouble to try to ruin
>your ""Fake ID"" ??
>

If my proving you the liar you are also exposes that which I've
never denied, that I am not who you dishonestly claim, so be it.

>
>> and that the
>> information you post, including the date of birth, isn't about me.
>> � � �Unless you are going to claim you lied with each admission, you
>> must admit you lie when you make the claims they are true. �You've
>> offered yourself no other options, Greg, since the conflicting claims
>> can't all be true.
>
>KBW > He makes the claim
>
>G > The claims about the domain lapse are all yours.
>
>> � � �What is a doain?
>> � � �If you mean domain, anyone with an interest may verify the truth
>> by visitinghttp://www.pcpages.com
>> � � �Unless you fear the truth that another of your lies has been
>> exposed, you'll visit and report on what you see.
>
>G > My claim is about your removal of your
>G > name and birthday from the list BEFORE
>G > the domain lapse.
>
>KBW > � � �You claimed I expunged the site.
>
>No, just your name and birthday, from it.
>

Liar.

[snip of parts in which Greg admits, by HIS standards, are comments
form me reflecting the absolute truth]

>>
>> >> >http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:wEMvzeKwaFIJ:www.legalspring.com/...
>>
>> >> Again, posting a link to that which you edited, and that which
>> >> you have admitted isn't about me doesn't prove your current claim. It
>> >> only adds more proof you are psychologically UNABLE to be honest,
>> >> unless you make a mistake or are forced. Not that any more proof is
>> >> needed.
>>
>> >Kent, Usenet posts prior to late July 2008
>> >and shortly after, reflect the truth of
>> >what your birthday page said.
>>
>> Your own posts only show that you have been lying about the
>> contents of the site since then.
>
>Even if that were true, which it isn't,
>didn't you forget about what was posted
>about it to usenet BEFORE then?

I mentioned the site many times. Outside of your psychological
NEED to lie, I didn't mention any names or dates of birth.
Your deceptive innuendo has been exposed.

[More of Greg's admission, by HIS standards, that my claims are 100%
true, snipped]

>>
>> >> >alt.friends birthday list Names are in no particular order.
>>
>> >13 Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) Jan 8, 1969 compuelf at gmail
>>
>KBW > That NEVER appeared on the site. You
>KBW > edited what was listed, as was proved
>KBW > a very long time ago.
>
>G > Got a LINK?
>
>> � � �Yes.
>> � � �As has been the requirement for over a year, once you post the
>> picture you claim to posses of David dressed as a Nazi, and the one
>> you claim to posses of me on a pony, or admit you've been lying about
>> the existence of both the whole time, I'll post it.
>> � � Aside from one time when I offered to suspend the requirement (and
>> you RAN from it), this requirement has been in place for over a year.
>> Still you make requests. �Of course you do this in hopes of conning
>> anyone reading into thinking I'm being less than honest.
>> � � �Your con has been exposed so often I have to wonder why you
>> continue to use it.
>
>Kent, Why do you think that withholding
>proof of what you say would help your
>arguments or hurt my arguments?

You only need to prove your claims. You have, to date, either
RUN from it, or attempted to distract, as you are doing now.
It's still mildly amusing how you continue to DEMAND standards be
held to others that you REFUSE to hold to yourself.

>
>I think it's silly that you refuse
>to prove anything you say because
>I once had to withold proof from you.
>

You've NEVER offered anything to support, let alone prove, your
claim that the photos exist. In lieu of proof, you offer avoidance
and further acts of deception.

>
>
>KBW > People did visit the site and
>KBW > they saw that the name and date of birth
>KBW > were not what you claimed and claim.
>
>G > Please LINK to their posts!
>G > You liar.
>
>KBW > As soon as you post the picture you
>KBW > claim to posses of David dressed as
>KBW > a Nazi and the picture you claim to
>KBW > posses of me on a pony,
>KBW > or admit you've been lying about the
>KBW > existence of both the whole time,
>KBW > I'll do so with a smile.
>KBW > It's up to you, Greg. �
>
>> >> The original listed my name as Brian Jones.
>> >> I didn't commit the date of birth I listed
>> >> to memory, but I think it was July something of
>> >> 1974. I do recall it was the early 70's.
>> >> If you have the original list, not the

Thank you for admitting, by YOUR standards, that the remainder of
what I presented to counter your lies was and is the truth.
Are you regretting DEMANDING that others MUST be admitting your
claims were and are 100% true when they didn't reply?

[Greegor]

On Mar 8, 1:57 pm, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >G > Kent, You had your name and birthday removed
> >G > from the list long BEFORE the domain lapsed.
>
> >KBW > My real name and real birthday were never on the site.
>
> >And the posts you made about selling
> >the apartment building at 202 NW College?
>
>      Also never on the site.  Your claim that it ever was is yet
> another of your MANY lies.
>
> >Have you disavowed those comments as well?
>
>      No such comments ever appeared on the Friends' web site.  Feel
> free to prove any did, a win for you, or admit another of your MANY
> pathological lies has been exposed.
>      The choice is yours, Greg.

Cute, But I was referring to usenet
posts. And you did not deny the
statements, only your mistaken idea
of the location of the statements.

> >They connect you with Fred and Janet Wills
> >who sold it to SWEENEYS.
>
>      First, no such connection appeared anywhere on the site.

I was not referring to the birthday
page and you KNEW I was not.

You have not denied the usenet
posts in which you connected
yourself to the Apartment building
at 202 NW College Ave in Ankeny.

You have also not denied the public
records that connect 202 NW College
Ave, Ankeny to Fred and Janet Wills.

Kent removed his own name from his
birthday page in late July 2008.
Prior to that, when I quoted that
page, Kent's own reaction was NOT
indicative of any fraud on my part.

Kent is lying when he claims that
I have misrepresented the birthday list.

But Kent posted comments about his
personal involvement in the sale
of his parents apartment building at
202 NW College in Ankeny Iowa.

http://www.assess.co.polk.ia.us/cgi-bin/protest/pickdpP.cgi?dp18100392048000=1&report=WebPublic&fixed=N&sketch=Y&map=Y&photo=Y&

He claimed HE sold it.

But the real estate records show that
his parents sold it to Sweeneys.

On 1994-04-26 in book 7010 on page 188:
WILLS, FRED A. & JANET R.
sold 202 NW College Ave to:
THE SWEENEY REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST

Also, there is a court record where
Sweeneys sued Kent DOB Jan 8, 1969
for a few hundred dollars in 1999.

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 Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse
Registry)<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 8, 1:57�pm, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> >G > Kent, You had your name and birthday removed
>> >G > from the list long BEFORE the domain lapsed.
>>
>> >KBW > My real name and real birthday were never on the site.
>>
>> >And the posts you made about selling
>> >the apartment building at 202 NW College?
>>
>> � � �Also never on the site. �Your claim that it ever was is yet
>> another of your MANY lies.
>>
>> >Have you disavowed those comments as well?
>>
>> � � �No such comments ever appeared on the Friends' web site. �Feel
>> free to prove any did, a win for you, or admit another of your MANY
>> pathological lies has been exposed.
>> � � �The choice is yours, Greg.
>
>Cute, But I was referring to usenet
>posts.

From your own post:

Kent, You had your name and birthday removed

from the list long BEFORE the domain lapsed.

When your lie started to get exposed, again, you tried to
distract.

[snip of items addressed long ago]

>
>Kent removed his own name from his
>birthday page in late July 2008.

I did no such thing.

>Prior to that, when I quoted that
>page, Kent's own reaction was NOT
>indicative of any fraud on my part.

I called you a liar. The fraud is implied in my claim that you
lied.

>
>Kent is lying when he claims that
>I have misrepresented the birthday list.

Again, I called, and call, you a liar.

>
>But Kent posted comments about his
>personal involvement in the sale
>of his parents apartment building at
>202 NW College in Ankeny Iowa.
>

Again, not located on the site at all.
How are you so UNABLE to remain focused?

[Snip of information either exposed as lies from Greg, or of
information Greg long ago admitted isn't about me]

--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

[Greegor]

G > But Kent posted comments about his
G > personal involvement in the sale
G > of his parents apartment building at
G > 202 NW College in Ankeny Iowa.

KBW > Again, not located on the site at all.

I said posted, referring to usenet.
You can delete your old posts but
not other people's messages that
reflect your comments about 202 NW College.

KBW > How are you so UNABLE to remain focused?

I AM focused on your IDENTITY, Kent!
Are you trying to distract from your ID?

Kent removed his own name from his
birthday page in late July 2008.

I reported that change in late July 2008.
Prior to that time, when I quoted that

page, Kent's own reaction was NOT
indicative of any fraud on my part.

Kent is lying when he claims that

I have misrepresented the birthday list.

But Kent posted comments to usenet about

his personal involvement in the sale
of his parents apartment building at
202 NW College in Ankeny Iowa.

http://www.assess.co.polk.ia.us/cgi-bin/protest/pickdpP.cgi?dp18100392048000=1&report=WebPublic&fixed=N&sketch=Y&map=Y&photo=Y&

Kent claimed HE sold the apartment building.

But the real estate records show that
his parents sold it to Sweeneys.

On 1994-04-26 in book 7010 on page 188:
WILLS, FRED A. & JANET R.
sold 202 NW College Ave to:
THE SWEENEY REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST

---

WILLS, FRED A. & JANET R.

THE SWEENEY REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST

1994-04-26 135,000 D/Deed 7010/188

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>G > But Kent posted comments about his
>G > personal involvement in the sale
>G > of his parents apartment building at
>G > 202 NW College in Ankeny Iowa.
>
>KBW > Again, not located on the site at all.
>
>I said posted, referring to usenet.

We were discussing the web site, stupid.
That I so completely exposed your lie that you had to try and
distract from it only means I completely exposed your lie, Greg.

>You can delete your old posts but
>not other people's messages that
>reflect your comments about 202 NW College.

And I asked you to link to any such post, or any replies. I note
you've not done so.
I know how you HATE it when I "call you out" on your lies.

>
>KBW > How are you so UNABLE to remain focused?
>
>I AM focused on your IDENTITY, Kent!

My Usenet nym, yes. But not who I am in real life.
You admitted my name in real life isn't Kent. You also admitted
the information you post as if it is about me, isn't about me.

>Are you trying to distract from your ID?

No. Since you have PROVED my not using my real life name has
made it IMPOSSIBLE to find any information about me, I'm quite happy
with it.
Why are you so DESPERATE to distract from the TRUTH that I have,
once again, exposed your LIE about the Friends' web site?

[Snip of lies already exposed numerous times]

Whereas I've already exposed your LIES, why do you keep
presenting them? Please answer, unless I've so completely defeated
you that you only see running or distraction as an option.

[Greegor]

Moe promised to get me prosecuted!
I can't wait!
Is this going to be like when Firemonkey
tried the same idiotic lie?

KBW > No.  Since you have PROVED my not using
KBW > my real life name has made it IMPOSSIBLE
KBW > to find any information about me, I'm quite
KBW > happy with it.

Everybody can see how "happy" you are!

KBW > Why are you so DESPERATE
KBW > to distract from the TRUTH that I have, once
KBW > again, exposed your LIE about the
KBW > Friends' web site?

http://www.legalspring.com/articles/misc-legal/20080327/566781_Kent-Bradley-Wills-D.html

http://74.125.95.132/search?q=cache:wEMvzeKwaFIJ:www.legalspring.com/articles/misc-legal/20080327/566781_Kent-Bradley-Wills-D.html+Kent+Wills+Webmaster&cd=1&hl=en&ct=clnk&gl=us

http://www.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html

alt.friends birthday list Names are in no particular order.

Name Birthday Email
1 Nancy (Cranky Cat) Mar 13, 1957 crankycat1 at hotmail.com
2 Sharon (Stinkweed) Apr 6
3 Bianca (Motherbink) Apr 28, 1960 motherbink at yahoo.com
4 Matthew May 12, 1982 troutd at localnet.com
5 Vijay Kumar R Zanvar May 19, 1977 vijoeyz at hotmail.com
6 Warren Davies May 24, 1931 w.davies at comcast.net
7 Gayle (Piper) June 3, 1944 shamrea at hotmail.com
8 Augustin (Jean Claude) Jun 18, 1938 jean.toussaint at bluewin.ch
9 Old Codger(TX) Jul 10 old.codger at overthehill.com
10 Erica Visser Sep 02, 1931 ha.visser at hccnet.nl
11 Doug Best Sep 13, 1950 dbest at mail.geneseeschools.org
12 Bigbazza (Barry)..Oz Oct 15, 1939 big underscore bazz at bigpond
dot net dot au

13 Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) Jan 8, 1969 compuelf at gmail dot
com

Nancy is from Canada.
Sharon is from Wisconsin.
Motherbink lives in Slidell, Louisiana, USA.
Matthew is from Baltimore, Maryland, USA.
Vijay is from Bangalore, India.
Warren is from Petaluma, California.
Gayle is from Alabama, USA.
Augustin is in Switzerland.
Old Codger is from Texas.
Erica Visser lives in Amsterdam, The Netherlands.
Dough Best is from Genesee Michigan.
Bigbazza lives in Sydney, Australia.

http://www.nnseek.com/e/ia.talk.misc/our_kent_wills_is_a_convicted_burglary_felon_363300865m.html#363300865

http://WWW.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html

alt.friends birthday list Names are in no particular order.
13 Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) Jan 8, 1969 compuelf at gmail

http://alt.nntp2http.com/adoption/2008/08/a91af7682c78247592ea1de5b0b90c19.html

http://www.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html

alt.friends birthday list Names are in no particular order.
13 Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) Jan 8, 1969 compuelf at gmail

[ Kent altered this in late July 2008 (or had somebody else) ]

http://www.advancedlegalhelp.com/articles/misc-legal/20080312/563984_Betty-argues-specifi.html

4/14/2008 7:57:08 AM

[ Posted THREE MONTHS BEFORE Kent edited his name/bday out ]

Here's his birthday, from Kent's OWN alt.friends birthday web page.
http://www.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html

alt.friends birthday list Names are in no particular order.
13 Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) Jan 8, 1969 compuelf at gmail

[ Also quoted by dragonsgirl" 4/15/2008 11:50:12 PM

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry)
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Moe promised to get me prosecuted!

Prove Moe made such a promise. Since it's another of your MAY
pathological lies, you'll never be able.
Contrary to the LIE you present, her stating that prosecution is
an option is NOT the same as promising you will be prosecuted.

>I can't wait!
>Is this going to be like when Firemonkey
>tried the same idiotic lie?

FM made no such claim.
Again, stating that it's an option is not the same, to the

rational mind. YM WILL V, of course.

>
>

>KBW > No.  Since you have PROVED my not using
>KBW > my real life name has made it IMPOSSIBLE
>KBW > to find any information about me, I'm quite
>KBW > happy with it.
>
>Everybody can see how "happy" you are!

I am happy. I'm able to PROVE you the pro-CPS shill you are,
thereby destroying your dream of ensuring a CPS win 100% of the time,
while remaining free of any form of retaliation. Even retaliation as
pathetic as you attempt to dish out.
In your attempts to get me for outing you as a CPS shill, you
only managed to allow me more opportunities to show how, in your
twisted mind, CPS can do NO wrong.
It's win-win for me. I'm always happy when I'm given a win-win
situation.

>
>KBW > Why are you so DESPERATE
>KBW > to distract from the TRUTH that I have, once
>KBW > again, exposed your LIE about the
>KBW > Friends' web site?
>

[Snip of information already proved to be a lies]

Again I ask, why are you so DESPERATE to distract from the TRUTH
that I have, once again, exposed your LIE about the Friends' web site?
Linking to your exposed lies doesn't answer the question asked, Greg.

I see you're still using and abusing illegal drugs. You admitted
(see sig) that your stalking of the members of alt.friends was, and
is, due to your use and abuse of illegal drugs. Unless you LIED when
you made the admission, you must still be committing the act.
If only the admission of a PROVED pathological liar, such is the
case with you, could be used as evidence. You could spend some more
time incarcerated. The problem is that there is no way to know if you
were being honest when you made the admission, or if you were lying.
Of course, that's the problem with every claim you present.

[Greegor]

Kent, You posted in usenet several times about
living at 202 NW College Ave #5 from 1993-1998
and you claimed involvement in owning and selling
that apartment building.

Those claims connect you to Janet Rae and
Frederick Alfred Wills.

Which confirms your identity to be Kent Bradley Wills.

What makes you think that you have a right
to lie and conceal your Felonies?

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry)
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Kent, You posted in usenet several times about
>living at 202 NW College Ave #5 from 1993-1998

Where are these posts, Greg?
While there is no numerical definition for several, you will need
to link to more than four to support your claim.
If you would prefer to admit the obvious, that you lied, I am
willing to accept that.

[womanGoddess]

On Mar 11, 3:22 am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
> wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
> and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
> and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry)
>

> <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Moe promised to get me prosecuted!
>
>     Prove Moe made such a promise.  Since it's another of your MAY
> pathological lies, you'll never be able.

What I did say is that the old IBM Thinkpad I used had some
interesting things I did not put in certain files. That notebook is,
ahem, elsewhere, right now.

And Greg can bluster all he wants to claim I am lying. The outcome
will not change. Its one thing to be an idiot on usenet calling people
names. It is quite another thing to hack into specific computers.

In fact its a federal crime to do that.

>     Contrary to the LIE you present, her stating that prosecution is
> an option is NOT the same as promising you will be prosecuted.

Agreed.

>
> >I can't wait!
> >Is this going to be like when Firemonkey
> >tried the same idiotic lie?
>
>     FM made no such claim.
>     Again, stating that it's an option is not the same, to the
> rational mind.  YM WILL V, of course.

I have yet to see a post by FM making that claim.

Moe

> 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" Hansonhttp://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 <greego...@gmail.com>

> <2afdd85e-3b16-4829-97af-ce6b0e130...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>

[Greegor]

Moe > In fact its a federal crime to do that.

Please let me know who hatched your
computer so I can thank them for it.

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry)

<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

You really need to get off the illegal drugs, Greg. One can't
"hatch" a computer. And Moe has never claimed one can.

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

--a true story

$9850.00 $1500.00 $8350.00

In MID
<2afdd85e-3b16-4829...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>

[Greegor]

Are you saying that CURRENT phone number is not yours?
Check out the map, and it even does an AERIAL view!

http://dexknows.whitepages.com/search/FindPerson?search_id=62111411142376533939&city=ROGERS&state_id=AR

Why is it that when other people posted that phone
number in usenet, you didn't deny it was you?

Kent, Why do they think you ( compuelf ) live in Rogers?

http://www.peoplefinders.com/search/searchpreview.aspx?searchtype=people-name&fn=kent&ln=wills&mn=&city=rogers&state=AR

Notice the middle initial and the relatives.
How many of ""those other"" compuelf's
have the name Kent Wills and are related
to Fred, Janet and Tiffany?

Kent B Wills (Age 41)
Rogers, AR [ latest listing ]
Ankeny, IA
Marshalltown, IA
Bartlett, IL
Villa Park, IL
Tiffany Jeanne [Wills] Hartwig (Age 36)
Frederick A Wills
Frederick Alfred Wills (Age 66)
Janet Rae Wills (Age 63)
Michael A Wills (Age 41)
WILLS, KENT ROGERS, AR compue**@___.com
WILLS, KENT ROGERS, AR compue**@___.com

http://www.slashlegal.com/showthread.php?t=158861&page=17

http://www.slashlegal.com/showthread.php?t=158861&page=19
http://www.google.com/url?

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.adoption/msg/650b09611f404cef?hl=en

[Greegor]

Moe > In fact its a federal crime to do that.

G > Please let me know who hatched your
G > computer so I can thank them for it.

Are you saying that this CURRENT phone number is not yours, Kent?

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Moe > In fact its a federal crime to do that.
>
>G > Please let me know who hatched your
>G > computer so I can thank them for it.
>
>Are you saying that this CURRENT phone number is not yours, Kent?

Outside of your drug induced delusions, you and I are not the
same person, Greg. Really. You replied to yourself, addressing
yourself as Kent.
Or is this your way of admitting, again, that you KNOW I am not
the person you dishonestly claim I am?

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

--a true story

$9850.00 $1500.00 $8350.00

In MID
<2afdd85e-3b16-4829...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Are you saying that CURRENT phone number is not yours?

My cell number is mine. Have I claimed it is not?
If you mean the land line, I do deny it being mine. Just as I
have ALWAYS done, in contrast to your lie.

>Check out the map, and it even does an AERIAL view!

Of a business. Nothing like linking to a business park to PROVE
you can't be honest, huh?
Once again the author of your post manages to make you look the
drug addled fool you are. Be sure to thank him for me.

>
>http://dexknows.whitepages.com/search/FindPerson?search_id=62111411142376533939&city=ROGERS&state_id=AR
>

If the number listed is mine, you have my permission to call,
Greg.
Did you catch that? You may call me, if the number listed is
actually mine.
If you KNOW you are lying, you'll never call, since anyone for
whom that number is assigned could file harassment and stalking
charges against you. Harassment would be far more likely of the two
options.
My granting you permission will ruin any hope I might have of
filing charges successfully. You have nothing to lose, unless you are
going to admit you are posting what you KNOW to be a lie.
It's up to you, Greg. Call or admit another of your MANY drug
induced lies have been exposed.
And you can't LIE and claim the number was once mine but no
longer. You claim it's current.
Be sure to record the call. Federal law will apply, and allows
for the recording of phone calls without letting the other party know.
Or would you rather admit, either openly or via your own
standards, that you are posting that which you KNOW to be a lie?

>Why is it that when other people posted that phone
>number in usenet, you didn't deny it was you?

Why are you lying, Greg?
I did deny it when Jonezie, who, contrary to your LIE, is only
one person, posted it. I also exposed his LIE that it belonged to me,
since it belonged to no one at the time.
But then, you're going to call the number, or admit you KNOWINGLY
post that which is nothing but a product of your use and abuse of
illegal drugs.

>
>
>Kent, Why do they think you ( compuelf ) live in Rogers?

From the site:

Kent Wills Nash TX

You need to lay off the drugs, Greg. Seriously.
For the record, I don't live in Texas either, though I can now
point out how you have dishonestly claimed I do.

>
>http://www.peoplefinders.com/search/searchpreview.aspx?searchtype=people-name&fn=kent&ln=wills&mn=&city=rogers&state=AR
>
>Notice the middle initial and the relatives.

The C&P above shows no middle initial.
None of the people named are related to me. A truth you've
admitted in the past.

>How many of ""those other"" compuelf's

Double quotation marks are not scare quotes and still have NO
meaning. The use of them is equal to using nothing at all. A truth
you slipped and made clear you understand.
As far as I know, only one other person uses the nym compuelf. If
you have proof there are others, please post it or admit your LIE of
multiple other people has been exposed. The choice is yours.

>have the name Kent Wills and are related
>to Fred, Janet and Tiffany?

Probably no one. I can only state with certainty that I do not.
No amount of your lying will ever alter this simple truth.
And what of my other sister? Since you've openly acknowledged
her existence, you MUST come up with a name for her.

>
>Kent B Wills (Age 41)

The age is off. I'm older than that, a truth you've admitted in
the past.

>Rogers, AR [ latest listing ]

I've been to Rogers on my way to Monte Ne many years ago. Do you
equate that with my living there now?
If so, how does your drug addled mind rationalize the claim?

>Ankeny, IA

I did live there.

>Marshalltown, IA

I've never lived there. Lindsay and I did own an apartment
building in Marshalltown a long time ago.

>Bartlett, IL

I've never lived there.
I did live in Hanover Park. Both towns used the same post office,
which is where "Daniel Goldblum," the, um, "man" who first made the
claim of Bartlett got confused.

>Villa Park, IL

Why no mention of Lisle? I lived there for two years. Chicago
proper also is absent. I was there for three years.
Skokie is also absent from the list. Of course, I lived at the
funeral home, so aside from personal mail, my name didn't appear on
anything, so this should be excused.
Still, it's clear you've been given some bad information. You
should speak to the author of your posts about this.

>Tiffany Jeanne [Wills] Hartwig (Age 36)

Nice editing, Greg.
Your further proof that you are UNABLE to be honest,
intentionally, aside, you've admitted I have no sister named Tiffany
when you admitted the information you post as if it is about me was
and is not about me.
And where is a name for my other sister? You acknowledged her
existence when you claimed my sisters (plural) and I have unrestricted
access to the phantom trust fund.

>Frederick A Wills
>Frederick Alfred Wills (Age 66)

I have no idea who he is.

>Janet Rae Wills (Age 63)

I have no idea who she is.

>Michael A Wills (Age 41)

So I have a twin brother now? Clearly this is the claim you are
presenting.
How serious has your drug use and abuse (unless you lied) made
your mental defects? Serious question.

Is there a SPECIFIC reason your admitted use and abuse of illegal
drugs is compelling you to present claims you KNOW to be lies?
Serious question.
And why did you feel the need to post the same message multiple
times? Are you so stoned you honestly think if you present the same
lies enough times they will magically become the truth?
Also serious questions.
I await your answers and your link to the audio of the phone call
you'll make, unless you wish to admit you posted that which you KNOW
to be a lie.

[Greegor]

Are you saying that this CURRENT phone number is not yours, Kent?

[richard]

On Sat, 13 Mar 2010 23:06:20 -0800 (PST), Greegor wrote:

> Are you saying that this CURRENT phone number is not yours, Kent?
> Check out the map, and it even does an AERIAL view!

What is your point with trying to prove who one particular person is over
and over and over? Each time, claiming it is someone in another location?
In this post, you have multiple claims. All you are doing is saying to the
world, "Hey look at me! I am one stupid dickhead!".

[Greegor]

r > What is your point with trying to prove who one
r > particular person is over and over and over?
r > Each time, claiming it is someone in another

r > location? In this post, you have multiple

r > claims. All you are doing is saying to the
r > world, "Hey look at me! I am one stupid
r > dickhead!".

Please point out the contradictions.

Listing the chain of past addresses with the current
one on top is a fairly common practice I think.

Kent has posted publicly about many of his past
addresses and even those of his family members.

Are you saying that this CURRENT phone number is not yours, Kent?
Check out the map, and it even does an AERIAL view!

http://dexknows.whitepages.com/search/FindPerson?search_id=62111411142376533939&city=ROGERS&state_id=AR

[richard]

What is the fucking point? Are you trying to have him arrested for having
committed crimes he's already been adjudicated on? Or do you just not care
for people who have been arrested?

Thing is, Kent doesn't have to prove anything to you, or anyone.

Now what's your full name, address and phone number? I'll bet you wouldn't
be such an asshole if you had to post your true information.

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry)

<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>r > What is your point with trying to prove who one
>r > particular person is over and over and over?
>r > Each time, claiming it is someone in another
>r > location? In this post, you have multiple
>r > claims. All you are doing is saying to the
>r > world, "Hey look at me! I am one stupid
>r > dickhead!".
>
>Please point out the contradictions.
>

In no particular order:
Your claim that I live in Little Rock, AR. Your claim that I
live in Rogers, AR. Your claim that I live in either Denver or Bolder,
CO. Your claim that I live in Canada. Your claim that I live in
Indianola, IA. Your claim that I live in Branson, MO. Etc.
There is no way all of your claims can be the truth. Especially
when you've claimed to have PROVED three of the locations via the
phone book. All can be, and are, lies.
Will you be man enough to admit each of the places you've claimed
for me were presented as the lies they were?

>Listing the chain of past addresses with the current
>one on top is a fairly common practice I think.

But I've not lived in many of them. A truth you admitted in the
past.

>
>Kent has posted publicly about many of his past
>addresses and even those of his family members.
>

I posted my address in Ankeny one time. I didn't realize there
were people as mentally screwed up as you consistently PROVE yourself
to be out there.
I've mentioned that I have one sister in a different state. For
the record, both live in different states.
That's it.
At no time have I ever posted the address of any other family
member. Unless you mean Lin, since, being married, we have lived in
the same address.

>
>
>Are you saying that this CURRENT phone number is not yours, Kent?

Richard and I are two different people, Greg. Really.
You've once again offered PROOF that you have Fregoli or you are
UNABLE to be honest.
What happened when you called? Or have you chosen to admit you
posted the information KNOWING you were lying about it being about me?

[snip the rest of Greg's claim that Richard and I are the same person]

[Kent Wills]

You must keep in mind that to Greg, there is NO ONE more
important on Usenet than me. No one else matters at all, in Greg's
mind.

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:

>What is the fucking point? Are you trying to have him arrested for having
>committed crimes he's already been adjudicated on? Or do you just not care
>for people who have been arrested?

An interesting proposal.
Greg as a self loather. I honestly hadn't considered that
possibility.
Greg's criminal history isn't a secret. While he has admitted
I've never been convicted of the crimes he claims, it could be that he
hates himself so much for the crimes he's committed that he's
projecting his hate onto me.
There isn't enough to state this is the case outright, but there
is enough to give reason to wonder.

>
>Thing is, Kent doesn't have to prove anything to you, or anyone.

All Greg NEEDS of me is my attention.
I give it to him. Every second he spends devoted to me is one
second less he can devote to destroying families.
I do much the same with the 419 scam E-mailers. Yes, they, like
Greg, make use of copy and paste, so the time they waste on me is
minimal. Still, those seconds spent wasting time with me are seconds
that can't be used to con someone else.

>
>Now what's your full name, address and phone number? I'll bet you wouldn't
>be such an asshole if you had to post your true information.

His full name is well known. Gregory Scott Hanson.
Some people have posted what is supposed to be his address over
the years. I've made no effort to have anything confirmed or denied,
since outside of Usenet fodder, Greg is a non-issue in my life.
I did offer to send him a postcard. He only needed to E-mail me
his mailing address. That would have served as a confirmation or
denial of the addresses listed, though that wasn't my goal in asking.

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry)

<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Are you saying that this CURRENT phone number is not yours, Kent?

Again, no.

>Check out the map, and it even does an AERIAL view!

Of an office or industrial park.

[snip that which has already been addressed in another post]

[Greegor]

r > What is your point with trying to prove who one
r > particular person is over and over and over?
r > Each time, claiming it is someone in another
r > location? In this post, you have multiple
r > claims. All you are doing is saying to the
r > world, "Hey look at me! I am one stupid
r > dickhead!".

G > Please point out the contradictions.
G >
G > Listing the chain of past addresses with the current
G > one on top is a fairly common practice I think.
G >
G > Kent has posted publicly about many of his past
G > addresses and even those of his family members.

[ No contradictions pointed out, of course. ]

r > What is the fucking point? Are you trying to have
r > him arrested for having committed crimes he's
r > already been adjudicated on? Or do you just
r > not care for people who have been arrested?

Kent and his hyena pack bashed me over
and over for my two 15 year old misdemeanors
which I admitted to. Meanwhile Kent denied
his own FAR WORSE and more recent
criminal record. Where were you with your
complaints when this took place over YEARS?

r > Thing is, Kent doesn't have to prove anything to you, or anyone.

How could you possibly be so ignorant of Kent's posting history?
Kent has talked up all kinds of his personal details, posted
photos of other people's stuff claiming they are his,

r > Now what's your full name, address and phone
r > number? I'll bet you wouldn't be such an asshole
r > if you had to post your true information.

Exactly my point the other way around.
Kent and his old associates began the "outing".
They didn't like it turned on them.

Most of them have proven the very argument you
just made, scurrying away after they were fully ID'd.

Kent is "special" however, because he LIES
about his true information and is one of the
biggest hypocrites from the old hyena pack.

Kent CONTINUES to post proveably false
information about me in an effort to smear me.

Kent even decided himself that my true record
was not enough dirt for him, so he fabricated
a fictional Drunk Driving (OWI) record for me
miraculously without a case number.

I respond with PUBLIC and official information
complete with LINKS so anybody can verify it.

How could you possibly have missed this?

Are you one of Kent's stooges, or Kent in drag?

Your posting time relative to Kent's response
is interesting. It looks like Kent answered you
before you even posted. A propagation oddity no doubt.

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/5459f262a0d780d2
richard at 5:07 my time and

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/0e5cea15377816a7
Kent responding to richard at 4:59

That's some amusing message propagation.

[richard]

What's your phone number?
Mine is 702-449-03xx.
Seriously.
Go ahead and call it all you want. Let me know what you get as a message
because I'll never hear it ring.

[Greegor]

Talking to yourself, Kent?
The x'd out phone number is Kent Wills caliber of behavior.

[Kent Wills]

I've granted Greg permission to call me, if the number he claims
is currently mine is actually mine.
It appears he's opted to admit he knew he was lying the whole
time.
Greg is very brave on Usenet, but when he has a chance to meet
his mark in real life, he hides. Even if the number were mine, he
still wouldn't call. He's far too much a coward to do so. Add that
he KNOWS his claim was and is a lie, and he has less motivation.

--
It's hard to relate to this high-tech world when your kid says her
Lego Toys need more memory.

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry)
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>r > What is your point with trying to prove who one
>r > particular person is over and over and over?
>r > Each time, claiming it is someone in another
>r > location? In this post, you have multiple
>r > claims. All you are doing is saying to the
>r > world, "Hey look at me! I am one stupid
>r > dickhead!".
>
>G > Please point out the contradictions.
>G >
>G > Listing the chain of past addresses with the current
>G > one on top is a fairly common practice I think.
>G >
>G > Kent has posted publicly about many of his past
>G > addresses and even those of his family members.
>
>[ No contradictions pointed out, of course. ]
>

Why would Richard need to point out what I pointed out? Do you
really need multiple people to point out the same things?
When Moe explained, in exhaustive detail, how to go about getting
documents, you WHINED because she did it rather than me. Now you
WHINE because I point out the contradictions rather than Richard.

>
>r > What is the fucking point? Are you trying to have
>r > him arrested for having committed crimes he's
>r > already been adjudicated on? Or do you just
>r > not care for people who have been arrested?
>
>Kent and his hyena pack bashed me over

Still paying homage to Kane, I see.
He still hasn't E-mailed me. I'm of the opinion that due to his
advanced age he's passed away.

>and over for my two 15 year old misdemeanors
>which I admitted to.

You BEAT your wife, Greg.
Why do you NEVER admit this truth?
You also LIED and claimed you were the victim. Sort of like your
LIE that Donna, who was and is supposed to be very tiny, threw a
frozen turkey through the window.
As if she could have had the strength to throw it with such force
that it made it up to the window, then through it, AND with enough
UMPH to cause shards of glass to become embedded in it.
You could have done so, and you did when you threw it at her.

>Meanwhile Kent denied
>his own FAR WORSE and more recent
>criminal record.

You've openly admitted I have no such record.
Where you lying when you admitted I do not have such a record, or
are you lying now? Both claims can't be the truth.

>Where were you with your
>complaints when this took place over YEARS?

Poor widdle Gweggie. Everyone is so mean to you.
Once again you PROVE how you NEED to be a victim.

>
>r > Thing is, Kent doesn't have to prove anything to you, or anyone.
>
>How could you possibly be so ignorant of Kent's posting history?

Richard probably doesn't care. He'll be in a far better position
to KNOW, of course.

>Kent has talked up all kinds of his personal details, posted
>photos of other people's stuff claiming they are his,

Prove it, or admit that another of your MANY pathological lies
have been exposed. The choice is yours to make, again.
Please post the link to the picture of a truck, while making the
dishonest claim that it's my soft top convertible. I'm actually
requesting you post that specific lie once again.

>
>r > Now what's your full name, address and phone
>r > number? I'll bet you wouldn't be such an asshole
>r > if you had to post your true information.
>
>Exactly my point the other way around.
>Kent and his old associates began the "outing".

No one ever sought any information about you until long after you
had been doing it to others.

>They didn't like it turned on them.

You don't like having it done to you after you did it to so many.

>
>Most of them have proven the very argument you
>just made, scurrying away after they were fully ID'd.

Most gave up trying to get you to be honest. I still hold out
some hope that you can become an honest and productive member of
society. My hope may prove to be futile, but it's still my hope.

>
>Kent is "special" however, because he LIES
>about his true information and is one of the
>biggest hypocrites from the old hyena pack.
>

Still obsessing and paying great respect to Kane. If he is dead,
I do hope he saw how important he was to you before he died. If he's
alive, I hope he's aware that he is such an influence on your life
that you MUST show him the level of respect and adoration you continue
to do.

>Kent CONTINUES to post proveably false
>information about me in an effort to smear me.

Yet you haven't been able to prove anything I've posted to be
false. If any of it is provably false, as you claim, why haven't you
been able to prove any of it false?
You have LIED about me. Each time someone has been able to expose
your lying. Of course, you have tried to present that it doesn't
count when someone else does it.

>
>Kent even decided himself that my true record
>was not enough dirt for him, so he fabricated
>a fictional Drunk Driving (OWI) record for me
>miraculously without a case number.

I've never claimed you have any drunk driving record.
Again I'll ask, and again you'll HIDE, why do you want attention
focused on alcohol only? Why don't you want to let people know that
alcohol is not the only substance that can cause one to get arrested
for, and convicted of, OWI in the state of Iowa?
Were you under the influence of an over-the-counter sleeping
pill? You'll recall my citing Iowa's OWI law which shows that a
sleeping pill can lead to OWI. I don't know that anyone has ever been
convicted of OWI because of a sleeping pill, but it can happen.
Given how you DEMAND attention be focused on alcohol alone, it's
clear it wasn't drunk driving. What was the substance that caused you
to be arrested for, a later convicted of, OWI? You've refused to
answer this simple question.

>
>I respond with PUBLIC and official information
>complete with LINKS so anybody can verify it.
>

Which, according to you, aren't about me.

>How could you possibly have missed this?
>

Richard will be in a far better position to KNOW, of course, but
he may well have seen your admitting that none of the information is
actually about me.
He may have seen your LIES that I had someone hack the court
database and that it was placed there as a joke/prank.

>Are you one of Kent's stooges, or Kent in drag?

It can't be that Richard came to the realization that you're a
nut job independently. No. He must be part of some conspiracy you've
labeled 'The Hyena Pack' (in homage to Kane).
How deep is your paranoia, Greg? Serious question.

>
>Your posting time relative to Kent's response
>is interesting. It looks like Kent answered you
>before you even posted. A propagation oddity no doubt.
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/5459f262a0d780d2
>richard at 5:07 my time and

From the headers:

Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 02:07:18

>
>http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/0e5cea15377816a7
>Kent responding to richard at 4:59
>

From the headers:

Date: Sun, 14 Mar 2010 04:59:15

It should be noted that due to the time change, my reply was
actually about two hours and not three as indicated.
How do you propose that my reply, sent nearly two hours AFTER
Richards post, was sent before his post?
The time either reached Google is not the same as the time they
were posted, stupid.

>That's some amusing message propagation.
>

No, it's more PROOF that you are psychologically UNABLE to be
honest, unless you make a mistake or are forced or it is more PROOF
that you are as mentally retarded as you present. OR it is more PROOF
that while you claimed the title of erudite, you are, in truth, the
polar opposite.
Why not whine that headers are invisible, all the while seeing
that I, and anyone else who may wish, can quote them.

>
>
>Are you saying that this CURRENT phone number is not yours, Kent?

As I explained, hours ago, Richard and I are not the same person.
You really need to cease the drug use, Greg. I'm very serious when I
write that.

[snip Greg's further PROOF that he has Fregoli or is UNABLE to be
honest except by accident or force]

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry)

<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 14, 12:19 pm, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>> What's your phone number?
>> Mine is 702-449-03xx.
>> Seriously.
>> Go ahead and call it all you want. Let me know what you get as a message
>> because I'll never hear it ring.
>
>Talking to yourself, Kent?

Whereas Richard is a well known poster, your dishonest claim that
he and I could be the same person is almost comical. If not for the
TRUTH that it further PROVES you have Fregoli, or that you are
psychologically UNABLE to be honest, except by accident or force, it
would be laugh out loud funny.
In another post you claim I smear Richard, now you claim he and I
are the same person. You can't maintain your lies for an hour.

>The x'd out phone number is Kent Wills caliber of behavior.

Is your claim that Richard and I are the same person more proof
that you have Fregoli, or more proof that you are psychologically
UNABLE to be honest, except by accident or force? I'll accept either
answer.
If both are true, you may admit this openly or make the tacit
admission of such by YOUR standards.

[Greegor]

On Mar 14, 4:05 pm, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> At one time, not so long ago, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
> >What's your phone number?
> >Mine is 702-449-03xx.
> >Seriously.
> >Go ahead and call it all you want. Let me know what you get as a message
> >because I'll never hear it ring.

KBW wrote:
>      I've granted Greg permission to call me, if the number he claims
> is currently mine is actually mine.
>      It appears he's opted to admit he knew he was lying the whole
> time.
>      Greg is very brave on Usenet, but when he has a chance to meet
> his mark in real life, he hides.

Kent wanted people to show up for his probation
revocation hearing which had been cancelled
weeks before because Kent's folks paid his
restitution to keep him from having to do
some more actual jail/prison time.

> Even if the number were mine, he
> still wouldn't call.

The Kent Wills who uses the compuelf
e-mail address is connected to that
phone number.

KBW wrote:
> He's far too much a coward to do so.
> Add that he KNOWS his claim was
> and is a lie, and he has less motivation.

Boring!

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry)

<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Mar 14, 4:05 pm, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> At one time, not so long ago, richard <mem...@newsguy.com> wrote:
>>
>> >What's your phone number?
>> >Mine is 702-449-03xx.
>> >Seriously.
>> >Go ahead and call it all you want. Let me know what you get as a message
>> >because I'll never hear it ring.
>
>KBW wrote:
>>      I've granted Greg permission to call me, if the number he claims
>> is currently mine is actually mine.
>>      It appears he's opted to admit he knew he was lying the whole
>> time.
>>      Greg is very brave on Usenet, but when he has a chance to meet
>> his mark in real life, he hides.
>
>Kent wanted people to show up for his probation
>revocation hearing which had been cancelled

The phantom one you STRONGLY implied you would show up for, then,
being the cowardly predator you are, ran from? The one Pangborn
claimed to have received a subpoena to attend (he claimed he was
invited, and I showed by citing applicable Iowa law that he would have
had to have been subpoenaed)?
How is it that he was unaware it was canceled until you claimed
it was? If he got a subpoena to attend, he would have been informed
it had been canceled. Odd that he kept this from you.
Oh yeah. You were both LYING, as has been proved several times.
Poor widdle Gweggie. Big bad Kent keeps exposing your lies.

>weeks before because Kent's folks paid his
>restitution to keep him from having to do
>some more actual jail/prison time.
>

At least you did as I suggested.
I suggested that you to claim that whatever mythical condition
needed to be met was met at the last minute. And you did so.
Why is it restitution now? You used to claim, when you first
followed my suggestion, that the money was for fines. Now it's
restitution.
If you would make notes about the lies you present, and refer to
them, you might not get caught lying as often. A better option, but
one you are psychologically UNABLE to use, is to be honest every time.

>> Even if the number were mine, he
>> still wouldn't call.
>
>The Kent Wills who uses the compuelf
>e-mail address is connected to that
>phone number.

Have you called? If you did not, you have admitted you posted
that which you KNEW was a lie. Which is it?
Post the audio of the call, Greg. Unless you're admitting you
posted that which you KNEW was a lie. Sort of like how you admitted
you KNEW you were lying about my parents' house.

>
>KBW wrote:
>> He's far too much a coward to do so.
>> Add that he KNOWS his claim was
>> and is a lie, and he has less motivation.
>
>Boring!

So you admit you posted that which you KNEW was a lie. Got it.

[Greegor]

KBW > The phantom one you STRONGLY
KBW > implied you would show up for,

Got a LINK to that?

KBW > then, being the cowardly predator

How would going to a probation revokation
hearing make me a cowardly predator?
Or failing to go to one that was cancelled
weeks before it was to take place?

I could argue that you got scared shitless
about how that hearing would've gone
and you got your Daddy to pay the money
to avoid the whole thing.

KBW > you are, ran from?  The one Pangborn
KBW > claimed to have received a subpoena to
KBW > attend (he claimed he was
KBW > invited, and I showed by citing applicable
KBW > Iowa law that he would have
KBW > had to have been subpoenaed)?

So you're saying that nobody can be
invited to attend a probation revocation
hearing without being subpoena'd?

Please post that Iowa code, Kent!

KBW > How is it that he was unaware it
KBW > was canceled until you claimed
KBW > it was?

Public records show that it your probation
revocation was scheduled for some time and
cancelled only weeks before when restitution
MONEY was paid to keep you out of the slammer.

KBW > If he got a subpoena to attend, he would
KBW > have been informed

BEFORE the change appears on electronic records?

KBW > it had been canceled.  Odd that he kept this
KBW > from you.

You're arguing that he should have told me
about something I already reported?

You are Kent Bradley Wills.

> Oh yeah.  You were both LYING, as has
> been proved several times.
> Poor widdle Gweggie.  Big bad Kent
> keeps exposing your lies.

You are Kent Bradley Wills.

> >weeks before because Kent's folks paid his
> >restitution to keep him from having to do
> >some more actual jail/prison time.

> At least you did as I suggested.
> I suggested that you to claim that whatever mythical condition
> needed to be met was met at the last minute.

Do court judges hand down mythical decisions, Kent?

> And you did so.
> Why is it restitution now?  You used to claim, when you first
> followed my suggestion, that the money was for fines.  Now it's
> restitution.

Is that your idea of a HUGE mistake, Kent?

File an appeal and insist you are innocent
because of some technicality after the fact.

> If you would make notes about the lies you present, and refer to
> them, you might not get caught lying as often.  A better option, but
> one you are psychologically UNABLE to use, is to be honest every time.

> >> Even if the number were mine, he
> >> still wouldn't call.

> >The Kent Wills who uses the compuelf
> >e-mail address is connected to that
> >phone number.

>      Have you called?  If you did not, you have admitted you posted
> that which you KNEW was a lie.  Which is it?
>      Post the audio of the call, Greg.  Unless you're admitting you
> posted that which you KNEW was a lie.  Sort of like how you admitted
> you KNEW you were lying about my parents' house.

> >KBW wrote:
> >> He's far too much a coward to do so.
> >> Add that he KNOWS his claim was
> >> and is a lie, and he has less motivation.

> >Boring!

>      So you admit you posted that which you KNEW was a lie.  Got it.

You are Kent Bradley Wills.

Kent's stock deceptions/logical fallacies

F. Ad Hominem calling opponents
1. Drunks or drunk drivers
2. Druggies or on drugs
3. Mentally Ill often as result of drug use
G. Res Judicata
1. Already conceded to Kent's argument
2. Question already asked and answered.
H. Fallacy of Suppressed Evidence
1a. Missing Middle, False Dilemma, False Dichotomy, bifurcation
1b. Fallacy of Complex Question - loaded question with presupposition
2. Withholding proof saying it's already on the table
3. ""Check is in the mail"" as proof of something.
4. Proof held hostage awaiting opponents proof on something else
J. Lie claimed to be based on opponents standards - a type of strawman

Claim that a lack of proof disproves something.
Claim that a lack of proof proves something.
Flat out outright lies.

It's as if Kent is an automation that is WAY too simple.

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry)
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

I note you still don't deny anything written above. That means
something, according to you, right? It means, according to you, the
information is 100% true, doesn't it?
You have, in the past, claimed a failure to deny a claim is a
tacit admission that the claim is 100% true. Shall anyone reading
accept that the claim above is 100% true, or will you admit, again,
that your standards are textbook psychopathic reasoning?

>KBW > The phantom one you STRONGLY
>KBW > implied you would show up for,
>
>Got a LINK to that?
>

Yes. And as soon as you post a link to the picture of David
dressed as a Nazi and the one of me on a pony (you've claimed to have
both), or admit you've been lying about the existence of both the
whole time, I'll post it with much haste.
Whereas this requirement has been in place for over a year, I
have to wonder why you keep acting as if you don't know. Do you
really think anyone is accepting your deception?
It's possible some one is, but it's not too likely.

>KBW > then, being the cowardly predator
>
>How would going to a probation revokation
>hearing make me a cowardly predator?

You didn't go, simpleton.
Not that there was one to go to. A truth you accidentally
admitted when you slipped and stated the information you post as if it
is about me isn't about me.

>Or failing to go to one that was cancelled
>weeks before it was to take place?

You continued to claim it occurred for at least a week after it
was to have happened. It was roughly two weeks after the date you
claimed that it was canceled that you then claimed it was canceled.
You made the foolish FACT CLAIM that it was canceled because money was
still owed for fines.
After someone was able to get you to understand the pure
stupidity of that claim, you claimed that the money owed was paid at
the last minute, in accordance with my suggestion that you claim
whatever condition needed to be met was met at the last minute.
Not only are you UNABLE to be honest, intentionally, but you're
extremely week willed as well.

>
>I could argue that you got scared shitless
>about how that hearing would've gone
>and you got your Daddy to pay the money
>to avoid the whole thing.

You can make the claim, but in doing so you would only further
prove how you accepted my suggestion and PROVED yourself very weak
willed.

>
>KBW > you are, ran from?  The one Pangborn
>KBW > claimed to have received a subpoena to
>KBW > attend (he claimed he was
>KBW > invited, and I showed by citing applicable
>KBW > Iowa law that he would have
>KBW > had to have been subpoenaed)?
>
>So you're saying that nobody can be
>invited to attend a probation revocation
>hearing without being subpoena'd?

The courts don't invite. Contrary to what Ken claimed, courts
subpoena people to show up.
I was, and admit I still am, shocked that a trial consultant was
unaware of this detail. I suppose I shouldn't have been. It's not
like he was, or is, a competent trial consultant.

>
>Please post that Iowa code, Kent!

I did so over a year ago when I proved Ken wrong. Ken RAN from
the thread. You did as well.
Are you going to claim you didn't see it? If so, I can post a
link. Of course, the requirement stands, so you'll have to complete
that first.
Poor widdle Gweggie. You just can't escape the truth, though you
put forth the effort to try.

>
>KBW > How is it that he was unaware it
>KBW > was canceled until you claimed
>KBW > it was?
>
>Public records show that it your probation
>revocation was scheduled for some time and
>cancelled only weeks before when restitution
>MONEY was paid to keep you out of the slammer.

Again you offer PROOF that you're so weak willed you'll do that
which your "stalking" target suggests.
Stalking is in scare quotes because while you are stalking me via
the same definition you posted to allow you to accuse others of
stalking you, the legal definition has never been met.
I'm certain that if you were ever able to find out my name in
real life, the legal definition would be met. Sadly, or maybe not,
you will never find it, since you honestly are as stone cold stupid as
you present yourself to be.

>
>KBW > If he got a subpoena to attend, he would
>KBW > have been informed
>
>BEFORE the change appears on electronic records?

Whereas you claim the change appeared weeks AFTER the event, yes.
Unless you are going to admit you lied.

>
>KBW > it had been canceled.  Odd that he kept this
>KBW > from you.
>
>You're arguing that he should have told me
>about something I already reported?

You didn't make a claim of it being canceled until well AFTER it
was to supposed to have been canceled. I would need to check to be
100% certain, but I think it was two weeks after. It may have been a
week and a half.

>
>You are Kent Bradley Wills.

Still UNABLE to be intentionally honest, I see. Of course, this
TRUTH is so well established no one has tried to counter it.

>
>> Oh yeah.  You were both LYING, as has
>> been proved several times.
>> Poor widdle Gweggie.  Big bad Kent
>> keeps exposing your lies.
>
>You are Kent Bradley Wills.

See above.

>
>> >weeks before because Kent's folks paid his
>> >restitution to keep him from having to do
>> >some more actual jail/prison time.
>
>> At least you did as I suggested.
>> I suggested that you to claim that whatever mythical condition
>> needed to be met was met at the last minute.
>
>Do court judges hand down mythical decisions, Kent?

Not as far as I know.
What does such a concept have to do with your doing as I
suggested, Greg?

>
>> And you did so.
>> Why is it restitution now?  You used to claim, when you first
>> followed my suggestion, that the money was for fines.  Now it's
>> restitution.
>
>Is that your idea of a HUGE mistake, Kent?

It's additional PROOF that you are UNABLE to be honest, unless
you make a mistake or are forced.
BTW, I didn't claim it was a mistake of any level. I did claim,
accurately so, that it was a LIE. Your attempt at avoidance only
strengthens the truth that your claim was a lie.
OK, it was a lie from the author of your post, but since your name
appears as the poster, you're the one stuck with it.

>
>File an appeal and insist you are innocent
>because of some technicality after the fact.

Isn't that YOUR party trick? How did that ever work for you,
Greg?
Oh yeah, no arguments were heard for your appeal for the
conviction of BEATING you then current wife. The Supreme Court for
the State of Iowa refused to hear arguments.
You never have stated what evidence was presented that so
completely proved your guilt. Would you like to diverge from the
topic at hand and explain it now?

>
>> If you would make notes about the lies you present, and refer to
>> them, you might not get caught lying as often.  A better option, but
>> one you are psychologically UNABLE to use, is to be honest every time.
>
>> >> Even if the number were mine, he
>> >> still wouldn't call.
>
>> >The Kent Wills who uses the compuelf
>> >e-mail address is connected to that
>> >phone number.
>
>>      Have you called?  If you did not, you have admitted you posted
>> that which you KNEW was a lie.  Which is it?
>>      Post the audio of the call, Greg.  Unless you're admitting you
>> posted that which you KNEW was a lie.  Sort of like how you admitted
>> you KNEW you were lying about my parents' house.
>
>> >KBW wrote:
>> >> He's far too much a coward to do so.
>> >> Add that he KNOWS his claim was
>> >> and is a lie, and he has less motivation.
>
>> >Boring!
>
>>      So you admit you posted that which you KNEW was a lie.  Got it.
>
>You are Kent Bradley Wills.
>

But you've presented I am not. Where you lying then, or are you
lying now? Both FACT CLAIMS can't be true, and given that you've
never claimed an error regarding either, one MUST be a lie.
Which one do you wish to admit is the lie, Greg?
And why did you LIE and claim my parents own a home you KNEW they
did not? Why did you LIE and claim a phone number for me you KNEW was
never mine?
Your refusal to call, even after I granted you permission if the
number is mine, a WIN for you, means you chose to admit you knew the
claims where lies the whole time.
In case you're wondering, I did call my parents and let them know
someone may call them claiming they own property they don't own and
that the items that Lindsay and I have are supposed to be their.
As of 8:30pm central time March 14, 2010, when I spoke with them,
no calls had been received.

[snip of items already addressed and long ago PROVED to be lies]

Is there a specific reason you keep posting that which I have
successfully countered?

[Greegor]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/523b2a3bf583fd0a/d58cd250883f5bd8

m@rl@go:
The above link to a thread shows an example of where
I posted something that was NOT about Kent Wills
and Kent "bogarted" himself into the thread.

[m@rl@go]

He jumped on you straight off, pure obsession defined.
--

[Greegor]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/523b2a3bf583fd0a

G > m@rl@go:
G > The above link to a thread shows an example of where
G > I posted something that was NOT about Kent Wills
G > and Kent "bogarted" himself into the thread.

m@rl@go > He jumped on you straight off, pure obsession defined.

Yup.

Here are some of his Kent's more amusing claims.
Notice that they contradict each other.

------------------------

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.bob-larson/msg/96c7554459ad7f73

Newsgroups: alt.fan.bob-larson, alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,
alt.feminism, soc.men, misc.legal
From: skylexicon <s...@lars.org>
Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 21:46:48 -0600
Local: Sat, May 6 2006 9:46 pm
Subject: Re: I agree with you entirely, Jude

Well...
My name is Kent Wills. Despite my clearly Welsh name, I was
born
in Krakow, Poland.
I came to the US in 1984 and quickly made my way to Chicago,
Illinois where there are more Polish natives than anywhere else in
the
world, save for Warsaw. Honest.
I started learning English, and did well financially in real
estate. I bought REO's (foreclosed homes) from banks and sold them
on
the open market for quite a bit more than I spent. Now everyone
knows
how I am *really* able to afford the BMW <g>.
In 1987 I got my GED, since no college was willing to accept
my
Polish diploma. Allow me a bit of bragging here when I mention I
joined Mensa the same year.
I attended Worsham College of Mortuary Science and even
managed
to get licensed to direct funerals and do embalming. I didn't last
long though. After doing it, I understand why alcoholism is so high
in the industry.
In 1992 I moved to Iowa to attend Grinnel College (often
called
the Harvard of the Midwest, though I can't figure out why <g>). In
1993 I transferred to Drake University in Des Moines, Iowa.
I now teach American History to middle school children and
own
rental properties.
I'm *slowly* working on my Master's degree.
You'll see me mention Lindsay a lot. She's a psychologist
working for the Fifth Judicial District in Des Moines, Iowa. We met
at a Mensa meeting in 1993.
If anyone wants to know more, just ask.

Kent

-------------------------------------------------------------------

vs.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.bob-larson/msg/61866eda85dd85b1

Newsgroups: alt.fan.bob-larson, alt.religion.christian.calvary-chapel,
alt.feminism, soc.men, misc.legal
From: skylexicon <s...@lars.org>
Date: Sat, 6 May 2006 21:51:29 -0600
Local: Sat, May 6 2006 9:51 pm
Subject: Re: I agree with you entirely, Jude (was Re: Hey, Ken Rape is
forced sex either way
Name: Kent T. Wills
Email: kentwi...@yahoo.com
Level: College
City: North America or Europe
Subjects: ESL classes (reading, writing, listening and speaking
classes), ESP (Business), EIP, Language Acquisition
Qualifications: BA in Journalism and Mass Communications - The
University Of Iowa
MA TESOL & Applied Linguistics - Northern
Iowa
University
Experienced, cultured, well travelled, people
oriented, speak English, Spanish, French and Czech.
I am a problem solver, take charge person,
easy
to get along with
Interests: Teaching foreign students, reading, writing, sports, and
travelling

[m@rl@go]

On his "wife", see her listed here?

http://www.fifthdcs.com/board.cfm

I suspect the whole shell-account life is just that.
--

[Greegor]

G >Are you saying that CURRENT phone number is not yours?

KBW > My cell number is mine. Have I claimed it is not?

The phone number I LINKED to is a land line.

http://dexknows.whitepages.com/search/FindPerson?search_id=62111411142376533939&city=ROGERS&state_id=AR

KBW > If you mean the land line, I do deny it being mine. Just as I
KBW > have ALWAYS done, in contrast to your lie.

G > Check out the map, and it even does an AERIAL view!

KBW > Of a business. Nothing like linking to a business
KBW > park to PROVE you can't be honest, huh?

What assertions have I been dishonest about, Kent?

KBW > Once again the author of your post
KBW > manages to make you look the drug
KBW > addled fool you are. Be sure to
KBW > thank him for me.

I write my own posts, nimrod.

http://www.peoplefinders.com/search/searchpreview.aspx?searchtype=people-name&fn=kent&ln=wills&mn=&city=rogers&state=AR

KBW > If the number listed is mine, you have my
KBW > permission to call, Greg.
KBW > Did you catch that? You may call me, if
KBW > the number listed is actually mine.

Why?

KBW > If you KNOW you are lying, you'll never call, since
KBW > anyone for whom that number is assigned could file
KBW > harassment and stalking > charges against you.
KBW > Harassment would be far more likely of the two
KBW > options.

Interesting, but you frequently conceal other options.

KBW > My granting you permission will ruin any hope
KBW > I might have of filing charges successfully.

That is indeed interesting. But what would I say
in a phone call to such a compulsive liar?

KBW > You have nothing to lose, unless you are
KBW > going to admit you are posting what you KNOW to be a lie.
KBW > It's up to you, Greg. Call or admit another of your MANY drug
KBW > induced lies have been exposed.
KBW > And you can't LIE and claim the number was once mine but no
KBW > longer. You claim it's current.
KBW > Be sure to record the call. Federal law will apply, and allows
KBW > for the recording of phone calls without letting the other party
know.
KBW > Or would you rather admit, either openly or via your own
KBW > standards, that you are posting that which you KNOW to be a lie?

G >Why is it that when other people posted that phone
G >number in usenet, you didn't deny it was you?

KBW > Why are you lying, Greg?
KBW > I did deny it when Jonezie, who, contrary to your LIE, is only
KBW > one person, posted it.

Please post a LINK to where you denied
the phone number.

KBW > I also exposed his LIE that it belonged to me,
KBW > since it belonged to no one at the time.

VERY interesting!

If you just told the truth (?) then Jonezie
mistakenly asserted that you had the
phone number 479-633-8823 at a time
when that number was UNASSIGNED
according to you. How ASTOUNDING then
that the same number is currently
assigned to somebody named Kent Wills!

http://dexknows.whitepages.com/search/FindPerson?search_id=62111411142376533939&city=ROGERS&state_id=AR

KBW > But then, you're going to call the number, or
KBW > admit you KNOWINGLY post that which is
KBW > nothing but a product of your use and abuse
KBW > of illegal drugs.

G > Kent, Why do they think you ( compuelf ) live in Rogers?

KBW > From the site:

KBW > Kent Wills Nash TX

Not from the LINK I posted.

KBW > You need to lay off the drugs, Greg. Seriously.
KBW > For the record, I don't live in Texas either, though I can now
KBW > point out how you have dishonestly claimed I do.

http://www.peoplefinders.com/search/searchpreview.aspx?searchtype=people-name&fn=kent&ln=wills&mn=&city=rogers&state=AR

G > Notice the middle initial and the relatives.

KBW > The C&P above shows no middle initial.

The content AT THAT LINK DOES!

KBW > None of the people named are related to me.
KBW > A truth you've admitted in the past.

G > How many of ""those other"" compuelf's
G > have the name Kent Wills and are related
G > to Fred, Janet and Tiffany?

> Double quotation marks are not scare quotes and still have NO
> meaning. The use of them is equal to using nothing at all. A truth
> you slipped and made clear you understand.
> As far as I know, only one other person uses the nym compuelf. If
> you have proof there are others, please post it or admit your LIE of
> multiple other people has been exposed. The choice is yours.

G > How many of ""those other"" compuelf's
G > have the name Kent Wills and are related
G > to Fred, Janet and Tiffany?

KBW > Probably no one. I can only state with certainty that I do not.
KBW > No amount of your lying will ever alter this simple truth.
KBW > And what of my other sister? Since you've openly acknowledged
KBW > her existence, you MUST come up with a name for her.

Why do I care about your sister?

> >Kent B Wills (Age 41)

> The age is off. I'm older than that, a truth you've admitted in
> the past.

Nope. Your DOB is Jan 8, 1969, Kent.

> >Rogers, AR [ latest listing ]

> I've been to Rogers on my way to Monte Ne many years ago. Do you
> equate that with my living there now?
> If so, how does your drug addled mind rationalize the claim?

> >Ankeny, IA

> I did live there.

> >Marshalltown, IA

> I've never lived there. Lindsay and I did own an apartment
> building in Marshalltown a long time ago.

Kent you GRADUATED from Marshalltown HS.

> >Bartlett, IL

> I've never lived there.
> I did live in Hanover Park. Both towns used the same post office,
> which is where "Daniel Goldblum," the, um, "man" who first made the
> claim of Bartlett got confused.

> >Villa Park, IL

> Why no mention of Lisle? I lived there for two years. Chicago
> proper also is absent. I was there for three years.
> Skokie is also absent from the list. Of course, I lived at the
> funeral home, so aside from personal mail, my name didn't
> appear on anything, so this should be excused.
> Still, it's clear you've been given some bad information. You
> should speak to the author of your posts about this.

> >Tiffany Jeanne [Wills] Hartwig (Age 36)

> Nice editing, Greg.
> Your further proof that you are UNABLE to be honest,
> intentionally, aside, you've admitted I have no sister named Tiffany
> when you admitted the information you post as if it is about me was
> and is not about me.

Kent, Did you forget that you connected
yourself to Tiffany's wedding announcement
years ago?

> And where is a name for my other sister? You acknowledged her
> existence when you claimed my sisters (plural) and I have unrestricted
> access to the phantom trust fund.

Lie.

> >Frederick A Wills
> >Frederick Alfred Wills (Age 66)
>
> I have no idea who he is.
>
> >Janet Rae Wills (Age 63)
>
> I have no idea who she is.
>
> >Michael A Wills (Age 41)

> So I have a twin brother now? Clearly this is the claim you are
> presenting.
> How serious has your drug use and abuse (unless you lied) made
> your mental defects? Serious question.

> Is there a SPECIFIC reason your admitted use and abuse of illegal
> drugs is compelling you to present claims you KNOW to be lies?
> Serious question.
> And why did you feel the need to post the same message multiple
> times? Are you so stoned you honestly think if you present the same
> lies enough times they will magically become the truth?
> Also serious questions.
> I await your answers and your link to the audio of the phone call
> you'll make, unless you wish to admit you posted that which you KNOW
> to be a lie.

Kent, I loved the part about how somebody
falsely asserted your landline phone
number was 479-633-8823 and you say
it was UNASSIGNED at that time.

http://dexknows.whitepages.com/search/FindPerson?search_id=62111411142376533939&city=ROGERS&state_id=AR

That same landline number is now listed
to Kent Wills in Rogers Arkansas.

Would you pretend that is a COINCIDENCE?

Why would a phone company take a
number that was FALSELY connected
to a Kent Wills and assign it for REAL
to a person named Kent Wills?

http://dexknows.whitepages.com/search/FindPerson?search_id=62111411142376533939&city=ROGERS&state_id=AR

That's incredible!

But I'm glad you say that
479-633-8823 is
NOT YOUR PHONE NUMBER!

[Greegor]

On Mar 16, 10:56 pm, m@rl@go <m...@inv.alid> wrote:
> On Tue, 16 Mar 2010 20:39:46 -0700 (PDT)
>
>
>
>
>

> Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...

m@rl@go > On his "wife", see her listed here?

http://www.fifthdcs.com/board.cfm

m@rl@go > I suspect the whole shell-account life is just that.

Well, Linda would fit, but the job title he
gave would not.

I would have serious doubts about somebody
like this being married to a two time thieving Felon
with a misdemeanor for using a kid in a burglary.

It could* explain how Kent was able to get probation
when he just got probation revoked.

I still think somehow Kent qualified as a
mental case or something to get that.

Do you think that "Lin" would let Kent
post butt shots of her on the web?

On one of his e-mails above, Kent mentioned
various languages but left off POLISH!!

Have you got any confirmation that he
graduated from Marshalltown HS?

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry)
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

Let's see, the subject is, "Is it your phone number, Kent?"
Nothing about me, if one is well immersed in a drug addiction.
To the sober mind, there is a connection.

[Kent Wills]

If this posts twice, forgive me. I sent it, but it's not showing
up on datemas.

At one time, not so long ago, m@rl@go <ma...@inv.alid> wrote:

>On his "wife", see her listed here?
>

Has anyone claimed Lindsay's on the board? Anyone? Either
directly or through implication?
Oops. Another of your deceptions (lies) has been exposed.
You're welcome.

>http://www.fifthdcs.com/board.cfm
>
>I suspect the whole shell-account life is just that.
>--

You can suspect anything you wish. That you have to dishonestly
present that Lindsay's on the board when no such claim has been made,
directly or through implication, tells that you aren't being honest.

--
Don't marry the person you want to live with, marry the one you cannot
live without.

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry)
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>m@rl@go > On his "wife", see her listed here?
>
>http://www.fifthdcs.com/board.cfm
>
>m@rl@go > I suspect the whole shell-account life is just that.
>
>Well, Linda would fit, but the job title he
>gave would not.

Since Lin isn't on the Board of Directors, and no one, save you
and your buddy, has ever tried to present that she is, this makes
sense.

>
>I would have serious doubts about somebody
>like this being married to a two time thieving Felon
>with a misdemeanor for using a kid in a burglary.
>

Since you openly admitted I have none of those, your comment is
pointless. Unless you meant it as further PROOF that you are
psychologically UNABLE to be honest without making a mistake or being
forced.

>It could* explain how Kent was able to get probation
>when he just got probation revoked.

Actually, under Iowa law, such a thing can't happen.

>
>I still think somehow Kent qualified as a
>mental case or something to get that.
>

Projection noted.

>Do you think that "Lin" would let Kent
>post butt shots of her on the web?

When have I done such a thing?

>
>On one of his e-mails above, Kent mentioned
>various languages but left off POLISH!!

It's not mine. You surely KNOW this, but, well, you are
psychologically UNABLE to be honest intentionally.

>
>Have you got any confirmation that he
>graduated from Marshalltown HS?

That would be a neat trick, since I never went to school there.

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry)
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>G >Are you saying that CURRENT phone number is not yours?
>
>KBW > My cell number is mine. Have I claimed it is not?
>
>The phone number I LINKED to is a land line.

Your point?
As you are well aware, there hasn't been a land line at our house
for a number of years. There was a very short time in which I tried
VOIP, but not long enough to get listed in any directory.
As such, you must have meant the cell phone. There is no other
option for you.

>
>http://dexknows.whitepages.com/search/FindPerson?search_id=62111411142376533939&city=ROGERS&state_id=AR
>
>KBW > If you mean the land line, I do deny it being mine. Just as I
>KBW > have ALWAYS done, in contrast to your lie.
>
>G > Check out the map, and it even does an AERIAL view!
>
>KBW > Of a business. Nothing like linking to a business
>KBW > park to PROVE you can't be honest, huh?
>
>What assertions have I been dishonest about, Kent?

[...]

What do you think you gain by posting the same thing within two
minutes? Other than proving, again, that your admitted use and abuse
of illegal drugs has made you mentally retarded?

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry)
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>G >Are you saying that CURRENT phone number is not yours?
>
>KBW > My cell number is mine. Have I claimed it is not?
>
>The phone number I LINKED to is a land line.
>
>http://dexknows.whitepages.com/search/FindPerson?search_id=62111411142376533939&city=ROGERS&state_id=AR
>
>KBW > If you mean the land line, I do deny it being mine. Just as I
>KBW > have ALWAYS done, in contrast to your lie.
>
>G > Check out the map, and it even does an AERIAL view!
>
>KBW > Of a business. Nothing like linking to a business
>KBW > park to PROVE you can't be honest, huh?
>
>What assertions have I been dishonest about, Kent?

That I live in an office/industrial park.

>
>KBW > Once again the author of your post
>KBW > manages to make you look the drug
>KBW > addled fool you are. Be sure to
>KBW > thank him for me.
>
>I write my own posts, nimrod.

Yet I used to get them HOURS before you posted them.
I know you would rather have people think I'm so good at exposing
you as a con man and fraud than to admit the truth. It's a part of
your MANY mental defects.
I do wish I could counter your claims, as I did with cites and
links, within seconds or minutes of your posts going out, but the
truth is, I'm not that good. I needed the time to research my
replies.
Oh sure, you did some editing. That's probably how you justify
the LIE.

>
>http://www.peoplefinders.com/search/searchpreview.aspx?searchtype=people-name&fn=kent&ln=wills&mn=&city=rogers&state=AR
>
>KBW > If the number listed is mine, you have my
>KBW > permission to call, Greg.
>KBW > Did you catch that? You may call me, if
>KBW > the number listed is actually mine.
>
>Why?

You've already admitted the claim is a lie.

>
>KBW > If you KNOW you are lying, you'll never call, since
>KBW > anyone for whom that number is assigned could file
>KBW > harassment and stalking > charges against you.
>KBW > Harassment would be far more likely of the two
>KBW > options.
>
>Interesting, but you frequently conceal other options.
>

Such as?

>KBW > My granting you permission will ruin any hope
>KBW > I might have of filing charges successfully.
>
>That is indeed interesting. But what would I say
>in a phone call to such a compulsive liar?

Since you KNOW the number is not, and never was, mine, why ask
me?

>
>KBW > You have nothing to lose, unless you are
>KBW > going to admit you are posting what you KNOW to be a lie.
>KBW > It's up to you, Greg. Call or admit another of your MANY drug
>KBW > induced lies have been exposed.
>KBW > And you can't LIE and claim the number was once mine but no
>KBW > longer. You claim it's current.
>KBW > Be sure to record the call. Federal law will apply, and allows
>KBW > for the recording of phone calls without letting the other party
>know.
>KBW > Or would you rather admit, either openly or via your own
>KBW > standards, that you are posting that which you KNOW to be a lie?
>
>G >Why is it that when other people posted that phone
>G >number in usenet, you didn't deny it was you?
>
>KBW > Why are you lying, Greg?
>KBW > I did deny it when Jonezie, who, contrary to your LIE, is only
>KBW > one person, posted it.
>
>Please post a LINK to where you denied
>the phone number.

As soon as you post a link to the picture of David dressed as a
Nazi and the picture of me on a pony (you've claimed to have both), or

admit you've been lying about the existence of both the whole time,

I'll do so.
It's up to you.

>
>KBW > I also exposed his LIE that it belonged to me,
>KBW > since it belonged to no one at the time.
>
>VERY interesting!

The truth can be.

>
>If you just told the truth (?) then Jonezie
>mistakenly asserted that you had the
>phone number 479-633-8823 at a time
>when that number was UNASSIGNED
>according to you.

I wasn't alone in proving the lie.

>How ASTOUNDING then
>that the same number is currently
>assigned to somebody named Kent Wills!

Yet it's not. Odd that.

>
>http://dexknows.whitepages.com/search/FindPerson?search_id=62111411142376533939&city=ROGERS&state_id=AR
>
>KBW > But then, you're going to call the number, or
>KBW > admit you KNOWINGLY post that which is
>KBW > nothing but a product of your use and abuse
>KBW > of illegal drugs.
>
>G > Kent, Why do they think you ( compuelf ) live in Rogers?
>
>KBW > From the site:
>
>KBW > Kent Wills Nash TX
>
>Not from the LINK I posted.

For the very one.
You really should check the links your sent, Greg.

>
>KBW > You need to lay off the drugs, Greg. Seriously.
>KBW > For the record, I don't live in Texas either, though I can now
>KBW > point out how you have dishonestly claimed I do.
>
>http://www.peoplefinders.com/search/searchpreview.aspx?searchtype=people-name&fn=kent&ln=wills&mn=&city=rogers&state=AR
>
>G > Notice the middle initial and the relatives.
>
>KBW > The C&P above shows no middle initial.
>
>The content AT THAT LINK DOES!

It shows Kent Wills Nash TX

>
>KBW > None of the people named are related to me.
>KBW > A truth you've admitted in the past.
>
>G > How many of ""those other"" compuelf's
>G > have the name Kent Wills and are related
>G > to Fred, Janet and Tiffany?
>
>> Double quotation marks are not scare quotes and still have NO
>> meaning. The use of them is equal to using nothing at all. A truth
>> you slipped and made clear you understand.
>> As far as I know, only one other person uses the nym compuelf. If
>> you have proof there are others, please post it or admit your LIE of
>> multiple other people has been exposed. The choice is yours.
>
>G > How many of ""those other"" compuelf's
>G > have the name Kent Wills and are related
>G > to Fred, Janet and Tiffany?
>
>KBW > Probably no one. I can only state with certainty that I do not.
>KBW > No amount of your lying will ever alter this simple truth.
>KBW > And what of my other sister? Since you've openly acknowledged
>KBW > her existence, you MUST come up with a name for her.
>
>Why do I care about your sister?
>

Only you can answer why you're so obsessed with her.

>
>
>> >Kent B Wills (Age 41)
>
>> The age is off. I'm older than that, a truth you've admitted in
>> the past.
>
>Nope. Your DOB is Jan 8, 1969, Kent.

You admitted the information you post as if it's about me isn't
about me.

>

>> >Rogers, AR [ latest listing ]
>
>> I've been to Rogers on my way to Monte Ne many years ago. Do you
>> equate that with my living there now?
>> If so, how does your drug addled mind rationalize the claim?
>
>> >Ankeny, IA
>
>> I did live there.
>
>> >Marshalltown, IA
>
>> I've never lived there. Lindsay and I did own an apartment
>> building in Marshalltown a long time ago.
>
>Kent you GRADUATED from Marshalltown HS.
>

Prove it, a win for you, or admit another drug induced LIE of
yours has been exposed.
The choice is yours.

>> >Bartlett, IL

>
>> I've never lived there.
>> I did live in Hanover Park. Both towns used the same post office,
>> which is where "Daniel Goldblum," the, um, "man" who first made the
>> claim of Bartlett got confused.
>
>> >Villa Park, IL
>
>> Why no mention of Lisle? I lived there for two years. Chicago
>> proper also is absent. I was there for three years.
>> Skokie is also absent from the list. Of course, I lived at the
>> funeral home, so aside from personal mail, my name didn't
>> appear on anything, so this should be excused.
>> Still, it's clear you've been given some bad information. You
>> should speak to the author of your posts about this.
>
>> >Tiffany Jeanne [Wills] Hartwig (Age 36)
>
>> Nice editing, Greg.
>> Your further proof that you are UNABLE to be honest,
>> intentionally, aside, you've admitted I have no sister named Tiffany
>> when you admitted the information you post as if it is about me was
>> and is not about me.
>
>Kent, Did you forget that you connected
>yourself to Tiffany's wedding announcement
>years ago?

No I didn't.
"Daniel Goldblum" did. When Ted posted the same thing, I asked
him what he thought it proved.
It could prove I have at least one sister, which I never denied.
It could prove she got married. I never denied this either,
unless it was before she got married.

>
>> And where is a name for my other sister? You acknowledged her
>> existence when you claimed my sisters (plural) and I have unrestricted
>> access to the phantom trust fund.
>
>Lie.

You made the claim.

>
>> >Frederick A Wills
>> >Frederick Alfred Wills (Age 66)
>>
>> I have no idea who he is.
>>
>> >Janet Rae Wills (Age 63)
>>
>> I have no idea who she is.
>>
>> >Michael A Wills (Age 41)
>
>> So I have a twin brother now? Clearly this is the claim you are
>> presenting.
>> How serious has your drug use and abuse (unless you lied) made
>> your mental defects? Serious question.
>
>
>> Is there a SPECIFIC reason your admitted use and abuse of illegal
>> drugs is compelling you to present claims you KNOW to be lies?
>> Serious question.
>> And why did you feel the need to post the same message multiple
>> times? Are you so stoned you honestly think if you present the same
>> lies enough times they will magically become the truth?
>> Also serious questions.
>> I await your answers and your link to the audio of the phone call
>> you'll make, unless you wish to admit you posted that which you KNOW
>> to be a lie.
>
>Kent, I loved the part about how somebody
>falsely asserted your landline phone
>number was 479-633-8823 and you say
>it was UNASSIGNED at that time.

I wasn't the only one to expose the lie.

>
>http://dexknows.whitepages.com/search/FindPerson?search_id=62111411142376533939&city=ROGERS&state_id=AR
>
>That same landline number is now listed
>to Kent Wills in Rogers Arkansas.
>
>Would you pretend that is a COINCIDENCE?

I could be like you and believe any number of drug induced
delusions. Of course, I would need to start doing drugs, which isn't
going to happen.

>
>Why would a phone company take a
>number that was FALSELY connected
>to a Kent Wills and assign it for REAL
>to a person named Kent Wills?

No such phone company has done so.

>
>http://dexknows.whitepages.com/search/FindPerson?search_id=62111411142376533939&city=ROGERS&state_id=AR
>
>That's incredible!
>

Your lies are often interesting, but I wouldn't claim them to be
incredible.

>But I'm glad you say that
>479-633-8823 is
>NOT YOUR PHONE NUMBER!

It's not. Deal with it.

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry)
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/browse_frm/thread/523b2a3bf583fd0a
>
>G > m@rl@go:
>G > The above link to a thread shows an example of where
>G > I posted something that was NOT about Kent Wills
>G > and Kent "bogarted" himself into the thread.
>
>m@rl@go > He jumped on you straight off, pure obsession defined.
>
>Yup.
>
>Here are some of his Kent's more amusing claims.
>Notice that they contradict each other.
>

Since the second post isn't mine, your lie fails.
You must be used to failure. You fail at EVERYTHING you try.

A post I had nothing to do with.
Is there a SPECIFIC reason you are LYING and claiming it's
associated with me? I believe it's due to your drug induced undying
belief that everyone with the same first and last name, even if one is
a Usenet nym, are all the same person.
If this isn't the reason, please let me, and anyone else reading,
know the real reason.

Outside of your drug induced Fregoli, I had nothing to do with
the second post.
Not everyone who posts to Usenet is me, Greg. Really.

[Greegor]

Kent, Do you deny that Frederick Alfred Wills and
Janet Rae Wills are on the property records
for 202 NW College Ave, when YOU
claimed YOU sold it?

Didn't you mean you HELPED Fred
and Janet sell THEIR property?

Kent, Do you deny that you publicly posted
that you once lived at 202 NW College #5?

How did you go from being a financial
supporter (living at 202 NW College Ave #5)
of Bob Larson to an obsessive detractor?

What, specifically, changed your mind, Kent?

[m@rl@go]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:11:26 -0500
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
> If this posts twice, forgive me. I sent it, but it's not showing
> up on datemas.
>
>
> At one time, not so long ago, m@rl@go <ma...@inv.alid> wrote:
>
> >On his "wife", see her listed here?
> >
>
> Has anyone claimed Lindsay's on the board? Anyone? Either
> directly or through implication?
> Oops. Another of your deceptions (lies) has been exposed.
> You're welcome.

Merely checking resources, no harm in that.

> >http://www.fifthdcs.com/board.cfm
> >
> >I suspect the whole shell-account life is just that.
> >--
>
> You can suspect anything you wish. That you have to dishonestly
> present that Lindsay's on the board when no such claim has been made,
> directly or through implication, tells that you aren't being honest.

It would be a logical position for someone of her credentials to hold, would it not?
--

[Greegor]

m@rl@go > On his "wife", see her listed here?

http://www.fifthdcs.com/board.cfm

KBW > Has anyone claimed Lindsay's on the board?
KBW >  Anyone?  Either directly or through implication?
KBW > Oops.  Another of your deceptions (lies) has
KBW > been exposed. You're welcome.

m@rl@go > Merely checking resources, no harm in that.

Kent acts like he can't tell a "what if"
discussion or a question from an assertion.

m@rl@go > I suspect the whole shell-account life is just that.

KBW > You can suspect anything you wish.  That
KBW > you have to dishonestly present that
KBW > Lindsay's on the board when no such claim
KBW > has been made, directly or through
KBW > implication, tells that you aren't being honest.

m@rl@go > It would be a logical position for someone
m@rl@go > of her credentials to hold, would it not?

Kent's probably only sorry HE didn't think of it!

Isn't it incredible that a phone number that
according to Kent was UNASSIGNED when
somebody said it was his a few years back
is now publicly registered to a Kent Wills?

That's quite a coincidence, that the
""other Kent Wills" would be assigned
a phone number which ""our"" Kent Wills
was ""mistakenly"" accused of owning before that!

I'm thinking it's probably his fax/computer line.
Or a hotline to his payee.

http://www.napavalleyregister.com/business/columnists/mcnichol-and-tillem/article_b114b8e0-e9a3-591d-a18e-666e40f04f8c.html

A family protection trust

By McNichol & Tillem Friday, August 1, 2008 12:00 am Updated: 2:20
pm.

Dear Len & Rosie, We have three grown children with children of their
own and we have a trust. We want our children to be the beneficiaries,
but want to set it up so that, should they divorce, the spouse would
not have a right to the inheritance.

I know that an inheritance comes into the marriage as separate
property but I thought that, if the pool is used for community
expenses, mortgage, etc. that the whole thing could become community
property. Yuk. Is there a way to ensure that it will stay separate
property? We don’t mind if our children purposely use the funds for
their families, but would like to set it up so that they can keep the
remainder of the inheritance should they divorce. What should we be
looking for? — Patricia

Dear Patricia, Most parents think the way you do. They don’t want to
look down from above and see their ex-son-in-law driving a Lexus
bought and paid for with their daughter’s inheritance. Normally, you
do not have to worry about your childrens’ spouses inheriting anything
from you. They will get nothing upon your deaths, unless you
specifically say so in your wills or trust. What you have to worry
about is what happens to the inheritance once it’s in the hands of
your children.

An inheritance is separate property, but many children, either by
mistake or on purpose, commingle their inheritance with community
property assets, or even transmute their inheritance to community
property. There are a couple of options available to you to help your
children not do this.

The first is education. The trick to keeping separate property
separate is to keep it separate. While that may not make much sense,
it can be pretty simple. Your children should know to put any
inherited assets into brand new accounts in their names alone,
preferably at different financial institutions. Then, they need to
know that they should never put anything else into these accounts that
may be community property. If your children create trusts to avoid
probate, these accounts should be identified as being their sole and
separate property.

A better alternative is for you to leave your children their inherited
assets within a family protection trust. The idea here is that if your
children receive their inheritance within its own trust, with each
child being his or her own trustee, your children will have a safer
means of protecting the separate property nature of their inheritance.
It’s meant primarily for the “good” children who are able to manage
themselves. The trust will make payments to your child for purposes of
support and education. The trust can buy a home for your child to live
in, but it’s best for the home to be held within the trust. That way,
if a child is divorced, his or her inheritance from you will be
protected.

There are three other principal benefits to a family protection trust.
First, since the child doesn’t really own his or her inheritance
within the trust, it’s largely protected from creditors through the
trust’s spendthrift clause, except for taxes and child support debt.
Second, all or a large portion of the trust assets can be exempted
from estate tax when your child passes away.

On top of all this, you have the ability to place restrictions on how
your children may dispose of their inheritance upon their own deaths.

You can prohibit your children from leaving all or most of the family
protection trust to their spouses, for example. With a family
protection trust you can literally and legally create a dynasty
intended to benefit your family for generations. — Len & Rosie

Len Tillem and Rosie McNichol are elder law attorneys. Contact them at
846 Broadway, Sonoma, CA 95476, 996-4505, or www.lentillem.com. Len
also answers legal questions each weekday, noon to 12:45 p.m., and
Sundays, 4-7 p.m., on KGO Radio 810 AM.

[m@rl@go]

On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

> m@rl@go > On his "wife", see her listed here?
>
> http://www.fifthdcs.com/board.cfm
>
> KBW > Has anyone claimed Lindsay's on the board?
> KBW >  Anyone?  Either directly or through implication?
> KBW > Oops.  Another of your deceptions (lies) has
> KBW > been exposed. You're welcome.
>
> m@rl@go > Merely checking resources, no harm in that.
>
> Kent acts like he can't tell a "what if"
> discussion or a question from an assertion.

He certainly jumped on that one quickly.

> m@rl@go > I suspect the whole shell-account life is just that.
>
> KBW > You can suspect anything you wish.  That
> KBW > you have to dishonestly present that
> KBW > Lindsay's on the board when no such claim
> KBW > has been made, directly or through
> KBW > implication, tells that you aren't being honest.
>
> m@rl@go > It would be a logical position for someone
> m@rl@go > of her credentials to hold, would it not?
>
> Kent's probably only sorry HE didn't think of it!
>
> Isn't it incredible that a phone number that
> according to Kent was UNASSIGNED when
> somebody said it was his a few years back
> is now publicly registered to a Kent Wills?

It is interesting.

> That's quite a coincidence, that the
> ""other Kent Wills" would be assigned
> a phone number which ""our"" Kent Wills
> was ""mistakenly"" accused of owning before that!

And he continues to have issues with your rather obvious use of the "other kent wills" sarcasm.

> I'm thinking it's probably his fax/computer line.
> Or a hotline to his payee.

Plausible.

--

[Greegor]

m@rl@go > On his "wife", see her listed here?

http://www.fifthdcs.com/board.cfm

KBW > Has anyone claimed Lindsay's on the board?
KBW > Anyone? Either directly or through implication?
KBW > Oops. Another of your deceptions (lies) has
KBW > been exposed. You're welcome.

m@rl@go > Merely checking resources, no harm in that.

G > Kent acts like he can't tell a "what if"
G > discussion or a question from an assertion.

m@rl@go > He certainly jumped on that one quickly.

Yeah. LOL

m@rl@go > I suspect the whole shell-account life is just that.

KBW > You can suspect anything you wish. That
KBW > you have to dishonestly present that
KBW > Lindsay's on the board when no such claim
KBW > has been made, directly or through
KBW > implication, tells that you aren't being honest.

m@rl@go > It would be a logical position for someone
m@rl@go > of her credentials to hold, would it not?

G > Kent's probably only sorry HE didn't think of it!
G >
G > Isn't it incredible that a phone number that
G > according to Kent was UNASSIGNED when
G > somebody said it was his a few years back
G > is now publicly registered to a Kent Wills?

m@rl@go > It is interesting.

G > That's quite a coincidence, that the
G > ""other Kent Wills" would be assigned
G > a phone number which ""our"" Kent Wills
G > was ""mistakenly"" accused of owning before that!

m@rl@go > And he continues to have issues with
m@rl@go > your rather obvious use of the
m@rl@go > "other kent wills" sarcasm.

I don't know where I picked up the
double double quotes, but I did used
to see it in others writing.

One of the current definitions did make
allusion to non-standard punctuation.

To tell you the truth I had never been
using double double quotes as scare quotes
for decades without knowing they were
called inverted reconstruction or scare quotes.

Kent was TOLD what my meaning was,
but bitched about it over and over.

Kent pretended that HE gets to decide
which definition of the word "zipperhead"
I meant. It seemed to be just so he
could announce that his first wife had
been Asian, as a way Kent (white guy!)
to claim the "race card" and portray me
as racist. There are several meanings
to "zipperhead" aside from the racist
one. Certainly an asian racist slur
directed toward Kent himself would
not fit. Kent is supposedly a Polish
immigrant, but eager to claim the "race card".

G > I'm thinking it's probably his fax/computer line.
G > Or a hotline to his payee.

m@rl@go > Plausible.

Family Protective Trust
http://www.napavalleyregister.com/business/columnists/mcnichol-and-tillem/article_b114b8e0-e9a3-591d-a18e-666e40f04f8c.html

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, m@rl@go <ma...@inv.alid> wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:11:26 -0500
>Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>> If this posts twice, forgive me. I sent it, but it's not showing
>> up on datemas.
>>
>>
>> At one time, not so long ago, m@rl@go <ma...@inv.alid> wrote:
>>
>> >On his "wife", see her listed here?
>> >
>>
>> Has anyone claimed Lindsay's on the board? Anyone? Either
>> directly or through implication?
>> Oops. Another of your deceptions (lies) has been exposed.
>> You're welcome.
>
>Merely checking resources, no harm in that.

You tried to present I lied because she's not on the Board. You
left out that no one has ever claimed she is.
Your deception has been exposed.

>
>> >http://www.fifthdcs.com/board.cfm
>> >
>> >I suspect the whole shell-account life is just that.
>> >--
>>
>> You can suspect anything you wish. That you have to dishonestly
>> present that Lindsay's on the board when no such claim has been made,
>> directly or through implication, tells that you aren't being honest.
>
>It would be a logical position for someone of her credentials to hold, would it not?

Perhaps. If they are interested in being on the Board.
Has anyone, other than you, offered anything that might suggest
Lindsay holds such an interest?

--
Intaxication: Euphoria at getting a tax refund, which lasts until you
realize that it was your money to start with.

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry)
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>G > That's quite a coincidence, that the
>G > ""other Kent Wills" would be assigned
>G > a phone number which ""our"" Kent Wills
>G > was ""mistakenly"" accused of owning before that!
>
>m@rl@go > And he continues to have issues with
>m@rl@go > your rather obvious use of the
>m@rl@go > "other kent wills" sarcasm.
>
>I don't know where I picked up the
>double double quotes, but I did used
>to see it in others writing.

If that was the intended meaning, you would have simply stated
such when I asked.
You used them to allow yourself a means to continue lying if the
truth, that double quotation marks have NO meaning, came out.

>
>One of the current definitions did make
>allusion to non-standard punctuation.
>

Why do you lie?

>To tell you the truth I had never been
>using double double quotes as scare quotes
>for decades without knowing they were
>called inverted reconstruction or scare quotes.
>

So the most basic of grammatical rules and definitions escaped
you. I can accept that.

>Kent was TOLD what my meaning was,
>but bitched about it over and over.

When I asked, you told me to ask an ESL teacher. I asked a few.
The truth that double quotation marks are equal to using nothing at
all came out.
Once this truth was brought forward, you tried, and failed, to
lie you way out of it.

>
>Kent pretended that HE gets to decide
>which definition of the word "zipperhead"
>I meant. It seemed to be just so he
>could announce that his first wife had
>been Asian, as a way Kent (white guy!)
>to claim the "race card" and portray me
>as racist.

Once again you are compelled to bring up race.
Be sure to WHINE and claim you didn't want to. It's what you do.
You frequently bring up race, then whine about how you didn't
want to discuss it.

>There are several meanings
>to "zipperhead" aside from the racist
>one.

Odd that it took you two months after I exposed your bigotry to
dishonestly claim you meant something else.
I liked how YOU proved it was two months.

>Certainly an asian racist slur
>directed toward Kent himself would
>not fit. Kent is supposedly a Polish
>immigrant, but eager to claim the "race card".

You're the one who constantly brings up the matter of race.

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry)
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>m@rl@go > On his "wife", see her listed here?
>
>http://www.fifthdcs.com/board.cfm
>
>KBW > Has anyone claimed Lindsay's on the board?
>KBW >  Anyone?  Either directly or through implication?
>KBW > Oops.  Another of your deceptions (lies) has
>KBW > been exposed. You're welcome.
>
>m@rl@go > Merely checking resources, no harm in that.
>
>Kent acts like he can't tell a "what if"
>discussion or a question from an assertion.

I acknowledge Lin is qualified for the position. Only someone as
mentally screwed up as you consistently PROVE yourself to be would
equate qualified with desire.

>
>m@rl@go > I suspect the whole shell-account life is just that.
>
>KBW > You can suspect anything you wish.  That
>KBW > you have to dishonestly present that
>KBW > Lindsay's on the board when no such claim
>KBW > has been made, directly or through
>KBW > implication, tells that you aren't being honest.
>
>m@rl@go > It would be a logical position for someone
>m@rl@go > of her credentials to hold, would it not?
>
>Kent's probably only sorry HE didn't think of it!
>

Why would I wish to think Lin holds a position she doesn't have
and that no one has ever even so much as implied she has?
Please be specific in your answer.

>Isn't it incredible that a phone number that
>according to Kent was UNASSIGNED when
>somebody said it was his a few years back
>is now publicly registered to a Kent Wills?

Your attempt to distract from the deceptive claim that Lin is on
the Board is noted.

>
>That's quite a coincidence, that the
>""other Kent Wills" would be assigned
>a phone number which ""our"" Kent Wills
>was ""mistakenly"" accused of owning before that!

As of the last time I checked, 5:30ish PM last night, no one has
that phone number.
What did you get when you called, or have you chosen to admit you
knew all along the number wasn't and isn't mine?

>
>I'm thinking it's probably his fax/computer line.
>Or a hotline to his payee.

You also think I live in MANY places in the U.S. and one place in
Canada, all at the same time.
You hold many delusions, Greg. This is yet another.

>
>http://www.napavalleyregister.com/business/columnists/mcnichol-and-tillem/article_b114b8e0-e9a3-591d-a18e-666e40f04f8c.html
>
>A family protection trust
>

[snip of Greg's latest PROOF that he thinks he's exempt from any and
all laws. Copyright in this case]

You can have a discussion WITHOUT violating copyright law, Greg.
Really.

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, m@rl@go <ma...@inv.alid> wrote:

>On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 12:04:33 -0700 (PDT)
>Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> m@rl@go > On his "wife", see her listed here?
>>
>> http://www.fifthdcs.com/board.cfm
>>
>> KBW > Has anyone claimed Lindsay's on the board?
>> KBW >  Anyone?  Either directly or through implication?
>> KBW > Oops.  Another of your deceptions (lies) has
>> KBW > been exposed. You're welcome.
>>
>> m@rl@go > Merely checking resources, no harm in that.
>>
>> Kent acts like he can't tell a "what if"
>> discussion or a question from an assertion.
>
>He certainly jumped on that one quickly.

More than 12 hours is quick?
You must find a cricket test over very quickly as well.

>
>> m@rl@go > I suspect the whole shell-account life is just that.
>>
>> KBW > You can suspect anything you wish.  That
>> KBW > you have to dishonestly present that
>> KBW > Lindsay's on the board when no such claim
>> KBW > has been made, directly or through
>> KBW > implication, tells that you aren't being honest.
>>
>> m@rl@go > It would be a logical position for someone
>> m@rl@go > of her credentials to hold, would it not?
>>
>> Kent's probably only sorry HE didn't think of it!
>>
>> Isn't it incredible that a phone number that
>> according to Kent was UNASSIGNED when
>> somebody said it was his a few years back
>> is now publicly registered to a Kent Wills?
>
>It is interesting.
>

And, as Greg is well aware, an untrue claim.

>
>> That's quite a coincidence, that the
>> ""other Kent Wills" would be assigned
>> a phone number which ""our"" Kent Wills
>> was ""mistakenly"" accused of owning before that!
>
>And he continues to have issues with your rather obvious use of the "other kent wills" sarcasm.
>

Greg is now using scare quotes. He wasn't when he admitted I'm
not the person he claims.

>
>> I'm thinking it's probably his fax/computer line.
>> Or a hotline to his payee.
>
>Plausible.

It's POSSIBLE, but not very plausible.
If it is my phone number, you are free to call me. You'll do so,
unless you've come to the realization that Greg LIED about it.
Be sure to record the call. Since you're not in Arkansas,
Federal law will apply, and said law permits the recording of phone
calls without altering the other party. Of course, if it is my
number, I should know you'll be recording.
Be sure to make the audio available for everyone's listening
enjoyment.
Failing to call will be seen as an admission by you that you do
know Greg was and is lying.
Your move.

--
Aibohphobia: The fear of palindromes.

[Kent Wills]

Hi Greg.
Why do you ask the same questions so many times AFTER they've
been answered? Is the reason because you hope that the answers that
were given will be forgotten?
If that isn't the reason, please let me, and anyone else reading,
know the motivation you hold for asking questions so many times AFTER
they've been answered.

[Greegor]

Kent, Are you WINNING?

[m@rl@go]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:15:38 -0500
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> At one time, not so long ago, m@rl@go <ma...@inv.alid> wrote:
>
> >On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:11:26 -0500
> >Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> If this posts twice, forgive me. I sent it, but it's not showing
> >> up on datemas.
> >>
> >>
> >> At one time, not so long ago, m@rl@go <ma...@inv.alid> wrote:
> >>
> >> >On his "wife", see her listed here?
> >> >
> >>
> >> Has anyone claimed Lindsay's on the board? Anyone? Either
> >> directly or through implication?
> >> Oops. Another of your deceptions (lies) has been exposed.
> >> You're welcome.
> >
> >Merely checking resources, no harm in that.
>
> You tried to present I lied because she's not on the Board. You
> left out that no one has ever claimed she is.
> Your deception has been exposed.

I simply checked a resource to see if your claims were valid.

>
> >
> >> >http://www.fifthdcs.com/board.cfm
> >> >
> >> >I suspect the whole shell-account life is just that.
> >> >--
> >>
> >> You can suspect anything you wish. That you have to dishonestly
> >> present that Lindsay's on the board when no such claim has been made,
> >> directly or through implication, tells that you aren't being honest.
> >
> >It would be a logical position for someone of her credentials to hold, would it not?
>
> Perhaps.

Make that - yes.

> If they are interested in being on the Board.
> Has anyone, other than you, offered anything that might suggest
> Lindsay holds such an interest?

Does "Lindsay" really exist?

--

[m@rl@go]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:18:48 -0500
Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:

> If it is my phone number, you are free to call me. You'll do so,
> unless you've come to the realization that Greg LIED about it.
> Be sure to record the call. Since you're not in Arkansas,
> Federal law will apply, and said law permits the recording of phone
> calls without altering the other party. Of course, if it is my
> number, I should know you'll be recording.
> Be sure to make the audio available for everyone's listening
> enjoyment.
> Failing to call will be seen as an admission by you that you do
> know Greg was and is lying.
> Your move.

Let me just say, right here is evidence you are completely nuts and paranoid.

And that basically concludes this episode, Kent.

I'll return later to work on the suddenly missing Moe.

Interesting how she has dropped off.

--

[Greegor]

On Mar 18, 11:10 am, m@rl@go <m...@inv.alid> wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:15:38 -0500
>

> Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > At one time, not so long ago, m@rl@go <m...@inv.alid> wrote:
>
> > >On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:11:26 -0500
> > >Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > >>      If this posts twice, forgive me.  I sent it, but it's not showing
> > >> up on datemas.
>

> > >> At one time, not so long ago, m@rl@go <m...@inv.alid> wrote:
>
> > >> >On his "wife", see her listed here?
>
> > >>      Has anyone claimed Lindsay's on the board?  Anyone?  Either
> > >> directly or through implication?
> > >>      Oops.  Another of your deceptions (lies) has been exposed.
> > >>      You're welcome.
>
> > >Merely checking resources, no harm in that.
>
> >      You tried to present I lied because she's not on the Board.  You
> > left out that no one has ever claimed she is.
> >      Your deception has been exposed.
>
> I simply checked a resource to see if your claims were valid.
>
>
>
http://www.fifthdcs.com/board.cfm
>
> > >> >I suspect the whole shell-account life is just that.
> > >> >--
>
> > >>      You can suspect anything you wish.  That you have to dishonestly
> > >> present that Lindsay's on the board when no such claim has been made,
> > >> directly or through implication, tells that you aren't being honest.
>
> > >It would be a logical position for someone of her credentials to hold, would it not?
>
> >      Perhaps.  
>
> Make that - yes.
>
> > If they are interested in being on the Board.
> >      Has anyone, other than you, offered anything that might suggest
> > Lindsay holds such an interest?

m@rl@go > Does "Lindsay" really exist?

If there were really a psychologist employed
directly by the court system for those credentials
(That was Kent's assertion)
it would seem to fly in the face of the adversarial
nature of the court process.

When a psychologist is brought into a court
process they are usually hired from the
outside and present a report before the
adversarial or ostensibly adversarial court.

It would make much more sense for any
directly employed psychologist to be on
the CORRECTIONS side of things.

In any event a psychologist who would MARRY
a two time thieving Felon who used a teen
like he did would certainly display a huge
lapse in judgement, if it were true.

It would be very unlikely that an officer of the
court, a directly employed psychologist would
enter into such a marriage.

Others have suggested the photos are of a sister.
I tend to think they might be some sort of girlfriend.
Perhaps even hired by Kent on a semi regular basis.

[m@rl@go]

There is a certain professional nature to the pictures, yes.

This presents an interesting angle.

Further research on Wills + Iowa + psychologist comes up shy any Lindsay Wills:

http://www.iowapsychology.org/site_user_list

http://therapists.psychologytoday.com/ppc/county/IA/Polk.html

http://www.iowaschoolpsych.com/index.php?searchword=Wills&ordering=newest&searchphrase=all&option=com_search

I am forced to comclude that "Lindsay" is a figment of Kent's active imagination.

--

[Greegor]

m@rl@go > I am forced to [ conclude ] that "Lindsay" is
m@rl@go > a figment of Kent's active imagination.

Kent's claim of a sister Tiffany J [ Wills ] Hartwig
looks genuine.

Old records showed an Amy D Wills,
Samantha T Wills and Kelly M Wills
at the same addresses as Kent and
his folks but to quote one of Kent's old opponents:

"even a professional search failed to turn
up any evidence of there ever being a wife
named Lindsay and a son named Richard."

Currently, Tiff and Kelly show up but
Amy D and Samantha T do not.
Richard would probably be old enough to
show up now, but doesn't show up.

[m@rl@go]

On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

> m@rl@go > I am forced to [ conclude ] that "Lindsay" is
> m@rl@go > a figment of Kent's active imagination.
>
> Kent's claim of a sister Tiffany J [ Wills ] Hartwig
> looks genuine.

I agree, it does.

>
> Old records showed an Amy D Wills,
> Samantha T Wills and Kelly M Wills
> at the same addresses as Kent and
> his folks but to quote one of Kent's old opponents:
>
> "even a professional search failed to turn
> up any evidence of there ever being a wife
> named Lindsay and a son named Richard."
>
> Currently, Tiff and Kelly show up but
> Amy D and Samantha T do not.
> Richard would probably be old enough to
> show up now, but doesn't show up.
>

We are left to presume that Kent's "family" is simply an imagined one.

It seems Kent has a very active imagination, to go with his speedboat, BMW and condo.

--

[Greegor]

m@rl@go > I am forced to [ conclude ] that "Lindsay" is
m@rl@go > a figment of Kent's active imagination.

G > Kent's claim of a sister Tiffany J [ Wills ] Hartwig
G > looks genuine.

m@rl@go > I agree, it does.

G > Old records showed an Amy D Wills,
G > Samantha T Wills and Kelly M Wills
G > at the same addresses as Kent and
G > his folks but to quote one of Kent's old opponents:
G >
G > "even a professional search failed to turn
G > up any evidence of there ever being a wife
G > named Lindsay and a son named Richard."
G >
G > Currently, Tiff and Kelly show up but
G > Amy D and Samantha T do not.
G > Richard would probably be old enough to
G > show up now, but doesn't show up.

m@rl@go > We are left to presume that Kent's "family"
m@rl@go > is simply an imagined one.
m@rl@go > It seems Kent has a very active imagination,
m@rl@go > to go with his speedboat, BMW and condo.

The Walter Mitty type thing run amok.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Walter_Mitty

Walter Mitty is a fictional character in James Thurber's short story
"The Secret Life of Walter Mitty", first published in The New Yorker
on March 18, 1939, and in book form in My World and Welcome to It in
1942. It was made into a film in 1947.

Mitty is a meek, mild man with a vivid fantasy life: in a few dozen
paragraphs he imagines himself a wartime pilot, an emergency-room
surgeon, and a devil-may-care killer. The character's name has come
into more general use to refer to an ineffectual dreamer, appearing in
several dictionaries.[1] The American Heritage Dictionary defines a
Walter Mitty as "an ordinary, often ineffectual person who indulges in
fantastic daydreams of personal triumphs".[2] The most famous of
Thurber's inept male protagonists, the character is considered "the
archetype for dreamy, hapless, Thurber Man".[3]

Although the story has humorous elements, there is a darker and more
significant message underlying the text, leading to a more tragic
interpretation of the Mitty character. Even in his heroic daydreams,
Mitty does not triumph, several fantasies being interrupted before the
final one sees Mitty dying bravely in front of a firing squad. In the
brief snatches of reality that punctuate Mitty's fantasies we meet
well-meaning but insensitive strangers who inadvertently rob Mitty of
some of his remaining dignity.

[edit] Use of the term
When referencing actor Errol Flynn, Warner Brothers studio head, Jack
Warner, noted in his autobiography, My First Hundred Years in
Hollywood, "To the Walter Mittys of the world he [Flynn] was all the
heroes in one magnificent, sexy, animal package".

In his 1992 biography of Henry Kissinger, Walter Isaacson records that
on 6 October 1973, during the 1973 Arab Israeli War, Kissinger urged
President Richard Nixon's Chief of Staff General Alexander Haig to
keep Nixon in Florida in order to avoid "any hysterical moves" and to
"keep any Walter Mitty tendencies under control".[4]

In the 1997 text, 'Into Thin Air' by Jon Krakauer—where the author
personally recounted the events of the 1996 Everest disaster—Krakauer
states: "Walter Mittys with Everest dreams need to bear in mind that
when things go wrong up in the death zone (above 26,000 feet)—and
sooner or later they always do—the strongest guides in the world may
be powerless to save a clients life; indeed as the events of 1996
demonstrated , the strongest guides in the world are sometimes
powerless to save even their own lives". (page 275)

In 2003, Tom Kelly, a spokesman for British prime minister Tony Blair,
publicly apologised for referring to David Kelly as "a Walter Mitty
character" during a private discussion with a journalist.

In 2007, Automaker Ford admitted that it had to exclude from the list
of potential bidders "Walter Mitty" types who had dreams but no
experience, prior to the sale of their Aston Martin British GT car
brand to a consortium of business interests from America and the
Middle East, headed by Prodrive founder and world rally championship
owner David Richards.

The Guardian newspaper reported on 20 April 2009 that a leaked British
National Party training manual described some members as "liars
oddballs and Walter Mitty types".[5]

[edit] In Military Terminology
Also, there is a military slang term, "Walt", which is an abbreviation
of the name 'Walter Mitty', which refers to someone who has
aspirations to become a soldier, but none of the necessary personal
qualities. This slang can also refer to someone who poses as an
(ex-)soldier but who isn't a soldier (serving or former), or who poses
as something he isn't or wasn't; for example, regular army soldiers
who pose as SAS troopers. The term is sometimes used to describe a
small minority of individuals who participate in 'wargames' such as
Airsoft, Paintball, Military Re-enactment, and millitaria/weapon
collecting that, unlike the majority of their fellow hobbyists, do not
recognise that what they do for a hobby does not compare to military
service.

In his book on selection for the Special Air Service (SAS), Andy McNab
wrote that people who give away the fact that they want to be in the
SAS for reasons of personal vanity are labelled as 'Walter Mitties'
and are quietly sent home.

[edit] Notable Incidents
In 1990, American soldier Teddy Temish was described as a Walter Mitty-
like figure by a panel of Army psychiatrists who examined him after he
had been suspected of committing espionage for the Soviet Union, when
his self-created persona as a spy was discovered to be an elaborate
fabrication.

In 2002, Philip Sessarego, a novelist and conman was described by the
press as a Walter Mitty character and SAS fantasist when he was
exposed as a fraud by the BBC in 2002.

In 2008, Jim McAuley, a soldier who boasted on Facebook that he had
served with the SAS and killed more than 100 people, was termed a
"Walter Mitty" by genuine soldiers who exposed him as a fantasist,
forcing his resignation from the army.[6]

In 2008–2009, James Shortt, the Baron of Castleshort, Director General
of the International Bodyguard Association, claiming SAS and Parachute
Regiment service, was outed as a "Walt" by the British Army Rumour
Service (ARRSE) website and subsequently reported on by Private Eye
and The Sun.[7][8]

In November 2009, a member of the UK public was branded a “Walter
Mitty” figure by war veterans for marching in a Remembrance Day parade
wearing an SAS beret and an “impossible” array of medals. [1]

[edit] References in popular culture
Lists of miscellaneous information should be avoided. Please relocate
any relevant information into appropriate sections or articles.
(February 2010)

The character was played by Danny Kaye in the 1947 film version, and
is scheduled to be played by Mike Myers in a future film version.
Thurber opposed the 1947 production. Kaye's Mitty is a more comedic
character than the original, who is unmarried, gets drawn into a
farcical adventure in real life, and triumphs in ways that the
original character does not, even in his fantasies.

Walter Mitty is referenced in the lyrics to the songs "T&P Combo" by
311, "Vacation" by Alabama, "Sex and Drugs and Rock 'n' Roll" by Ian
Dury, "Kitty Ricketts" by Radiator, "In The City" by Madness, "Dreams"
by The Descendents, "Walter Mitty Blues" by The Meteors, "All Dressed
Up For San Francisco" by The Philosopher Kings, and "Sammy Davis City"
by Joe Strummer and Brian Setzer. Mark Lindsay referred to "Walter
Mitty mind" in his song "Silver Bird." Although the character is not
specifically referenced within its lyrics, the concept album Eldorado
by Electric Light Orchestra focuses on the exploits of a Walter Mitty-
style persona.

Stephen King in his novel, The Stand describes the character of Paul
Burlson as a "Walter Mitty outlaw daydream" when Paul tucks a revolver
into the waistband of his dress pants.

The official Peanuts website describes the character of Snoopy as "...
an extroverted Beagle with a Walter Mitty complex", a reference to the
many fantasy segments in which Snoopy imagines he is a World War I
flying ace battling the Red Baron.

The children's television programme The Secret Lives of Waldo Kitty
parodied the story as well as many others, with a mix of live footage
and animation featuring anthropomorphic animals.

[edit] References
^ "Walter Mitty". dictionary.com. http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/walter%20mitty.
Retrieved 2006-06-15.
^ walter mitty. (n.d.). The American Heritage Dictionary of the
English Language, Fourth Edition. Retrieved May 29, 2007, from
Dictionary.com website: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/walter_mitty
^ King, Steve. ""Thurber: Mitty and Dangerous."". Today in Literature.
todayinliterature.com.. http://www.todayinliterature.com/stories.asp?Event_Date=3/18/1939.
Retrieved 2008-07-14.
^ "The October War and U.S. Policy", October 7, 2003 National Security
Archives
^ BNP says some members are oddballs and liars. The Guardian. 20 April
2009. Retrieved 01 May 2009.
^ "'Walter Mitty' soldier's Facebook bragging exposed", The Guardian,
July 9, 2008.
^ Dunn, Tom Newton (29 Jan 2009). "Fake SAS man given Cabinet security
job". The Sun (www.thesun.co.uk).
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/campaigns/our_boys/article2183915.ece.
Retrieved 6 February 2009.
^ Squarebasher. "Cabinet Security A Shortt story". Private Eye.
[edit] External links
Sam Jones, Bounder with a barrister's wig preyed on women from lonely
hearts page ads, The Guardian, Tuesday, 27 October 2009, [2].

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry)
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Kent, Are you WINNING?

Let's see now.
I'll count the number of families you've recently been able to
ensnare and sacrifice to CPS, double it and let you know the number.
So then, I took the time to do the numbers for you, stupid.
0 x 2 is zero.
Every family that needs assistance in dealing with CPS who sees
that you will CON them into trusting you, allowing you to sabotage
their case, wins.
Every time another of your lies is exposed for all who read to
see, society as a whole wins.
Since I am a part of society, the answer to your question is
"yes." Big time. Everything else is just frosting.
Greg, are you losing?
All available evidence supports, if not proves, a claim that you
are and that you are DESPERATE to distract from this truth.
Want to guess why Dan doesn't come here any more?
My guess, and it's only a guess, is that it has to do with
accomplished goals; you with NO families to sabotage, and he too busy
with families he continues to help fight CPS successfully. Many of
which, I'd wager, read your BS and lies here and contacted Dan.
Naturally Dan would be in a better position to know, but my guess
is plausible.
You really are as stupid (unable to learn) as you present. Your
posting history, if nothing else, proves that.
You could have destroyed many more families had you not chosen to
harass others, obsess over them, and make clear what a clumsy,
incompetent fool you honestly are.
If not for your NEED to get my attention, you might still be able
to get families to trust you. Of course, Dan may have destroyed your
dream of a world in which CPS wins 100% of the time. We'll never
know.
Families win, you lose. Of course, you lose at EVERYTHING you
try.
Now be a good little money and HIDE from the truth I've
presented, or attempt to distract from it.

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry)
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>m@rl@go > Does "Lindsay" really exist?
>
>If there were really a psychologist employed
>directly by the court system for those credentials
>(That was Kent's assertion)

That's your misrepresentation of my claim.
Care to explain why you're being so deceptive regarding what I
stated?

>it would seem to fly in the face of the adversarial
>nature of the court process.

Maybe, if the claim you attribute to me was actually made.

[snip the remainder of Greg's drug induced delusion that are based on
his LIE regarding my claims about Lindsay]

>
>Others have suggested the photos are of a sister.

You are only one person, Greg.

>I tend to think they might be some sort of girlfriend.

Before we were married, she was.

>Perhaps even hired by Kent on a semi regular basis.

So now you claim Lin is a prostitute?
How deep does your drug induced (unless you lied) psychosis go,
Greg? Serious question.

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry)
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Kent, Are you WINNING?

Let's see now.
I'll count the number of families you've recently been able to
ensnare and sacrifice to CPS, double it and let you know the number.

So then, I took the time to do the numbers for you, dullard:

0 x 2 is zero.

Every family that needs assistance in dealing with CPS who sees
that you will CON them into trusting you, allowing you to sabotage

their case, then opting to ignore anything you claim wins.

A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott "Piggly

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry)
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>m@rl@go > I am forced to [ conclude ] that "Lindsay" is
>m@rl@go > a figment of Kent's active imagination.
>
>Kent's claim of a sister Tiffany J [ Wills ] Hartwig
>looks genuine.

I've made no such claim.
Again, you make a claim based on a lie you presented in the past.
Why do you make use of this method of dishonesty when it's been
exposed so many times?

>
>Old records showed an Amy D Wills,
>Samantha T Wills and Kelly M Wills
>at the same addresses as Kent and

Where are these phantom records, Greg?

>his folks but to quote one of Kent's old opponents:
>
>"even a professional search failed to turn
>up any evidence of there ever being a wife
>named Lindsay and a son named Richard."

Who made the claim you quote, Greg?

>
>Currently, Tiff and Kelly show up but
>Amy D and Samantha T do not.

Actually, when my real name is used, none of them show up.

>Richard would probably be old enough to
>show up now, but doesn't show up.

You need to use my real name, Greg. You admitted my name in real
life isn't Kent. Have you figured out what it is yet?

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, m@rl@go <ma...@inv.alid> wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:18:48 -0500
>Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> If it is my phone number, you are free to call me. You'll do so,
>> unless you've come to the realization that Greg LIED about it.
>> Be sure to record the call. Since you're not in Arkansas,
>> Federal law will apply, and said law permits the recording of phone
>> calls without altering the other party. Of course, if it is my
>> number, I should know you'll be recording.
>> Be sure to make the audio available for everyone's listening
>> enjoyment.
>> Failing to call will be seen as an admission by you that you do
>> know Greg was and is lying.
>> Your move.
>
>
>Let me just say, right here is evidence you are completely nuts and paranoid.
>

How does my inviting you to call me, if the number is mine,
equate to being mentally ill and paranoid?
If, as you deceptively claim, I am paranoid, I wouldn't want you
to call.
You should think through your lies before you post them.

>And that basically concludes this episode, Kent.

Pulling an El Salvador?

>
>I'll return later to work on the suddenly missing Moe.
>
>Interesting how she has dropped off.
>

Moe will often go days without posting. Her not posting isn't
anything unusual. Not so odd that you assign a dishonest meaning to
it.

--
2,000 mockingbirds: two kilomockingbirds

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, m@rl@go <ma...@inv.alid> wrote:

>> Others have suggested the photos are of a sister.
>> I tend to think they might be some sort of girlfriend.
>> Perhaps even hired by Kent on a semi regular basis.
>
>There is a certain professional nature to the pictures, yes.
>

I appreciate your flattery, but I'm barely an amateur
photographer.
If you mean the picture Number One Son took, he doesn't fit the
category of professional photographer either.

>This presents an interesting angle.
>
>Further research on Wills + Iowa + psychologist comes up shy any Lindsay Wills:

And you know why, but are unable to honestly state.

>
>http://www.iowapsychology.org/site_user_list
>
>http://therapists.psychologytoday.com/ppc/county/IA/Polk.html
>
>http://www.iowaschoolpsych.com/index.php?searchword=Wills&ordering=newest&searchphrase=all&option=com_search
>
>I am forced to comclude that "Lindsay" is a figment of Kent's active imagination.

If your claim is that she is fictional, prove it.
I'm waiting...

--
'Life is pain. Anybody that says different is selling something.'
-- Fezzik's mother

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, m@rl@go <ma...@inv.alid> wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 12:47:34 -0700 (PDT)
>Greegor <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> m@rl@go > I am forced to [ conclude ] that "Lindsay" is
>> m@rl@go > a figment of Kent's active imagination.
>>
>> Kent's claim of a sister Tiffany J [ Wills ] Hartwig
>> looks genuine.
>
>I agree, it does.
>

You agree with much that is not true.

>>
>> Old records showed an Amy D Wills,
>> Samantha T Wills and Kelly M Wills
>> at the same addresses as Kent and
>> his folks but to quote one of Kent's old opponents:
>>
>> "even a professional search failed to turn
>> up any evidence of there ever being a wife
>> named Lindsay and a son named Richard."
>>
>> Currently, Tiff and Kelly show up but
>> Amy D and Samantha T do not.
>> Richard would probably be old enough to
>> show up now, but doesn't show up.
>>
>
>We are left to presume that Kent's "family" is simply an imagined one.
>

How do you hold such a view, given the massive amount of evidence
that my family is real?
One example is Betty's comments after meeting not only me, but
Lindsay, and the kids. Unless you can offer something that would
support a claim that she lied, you must accept her claim as valid.
I could mention others who have commented, but since you'll be
unable to impeach Betty's posts, there will be no point.

>It seems Kent has a very active imagination, to go with his speedboat, BMW and condo.

Again, evidence has been offered. Aside from Jonezie being less
than honest about the registration, no one has even tried to counter
the evidence.

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, m@rl@go <ma...@inv.alid> wrote:

>On Thu, 18 Mar 2010 03:15:38 -0500
>Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> At one time, not so long ago, m@rl@go <ma...@inv.alid> wrote:
>>
>> >On Wed, 17 Mar 2010 05:11:26 -0500
>> >Kent Wills <comp...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> If this posts twice, forgive me. I sent it, but it's not showing
>> >> up on datemas.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> At one time, not so long ago, m@rl@go <ma...@inv.alid> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >On his "wife", see her listed here?
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Has anyone claimed Lindsay's on the board? Anyone? Either
>> >> directly or through implication?
>> >> Oops. Another of your deceptions (lies) has been exposed.
>> >> You're welcome.
>> >
>> >Merely checking resources, no harm in that.
>>
>> You tried to present I lied because she's not on the Board. You
>> left out that no one has ever claimed she is.
>> Your deception has been exposed.
>
>I simply checked a resource to see if your claims were valid.
>

I never claimed Lin was on the Board.

>>
>> >
>> >> >http://www.fifthdcs.com/board.cfm
>> >> >
>> >> >I suspect the whole shell-account life is just that.
>> >> >--
>> >>
>> >> You can suspect anything you wish. That you have to dishonestly
>> >> present that Lindsay's on the board when no such claim has been made,
>> >> directly or through implication, tells that you aren't being honest.
>> >
>> >It would be a logical position for someone of her credentials to hold, would it not?
>>
>> Perhaps.
>
>Make that - yes.
>

Lie as much as you need or want.

>> If they are interested in being on the Board.
>> Has anyone, other than you, offered anything that might suggest
>> Lindsay holds such an interest?
>
>Does "Lindsay" really exist?

Yes. You've commented on her pictures.

--

I did an unbelievable amount of work in the yard. It's amazing what I
can do when my wife puts my mind to it. :)

[Greegor]

Kent, Do you REALLY think you are WINNING?
Kent Wills Mar 19
Kent Wills Mar 19
Kent Wills Mar 19
Kent Wills Mar 19
Kent Wills Mar 19
Kent Wills Mar 19
Kent Wills Mar 19
Kent Wills Mar 19

[m@rl@go]

It is difficult to prove a negative of course.

Until we meet again, enjoy the day.
--

[Kent Wills]

At one time, not so long ago, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson,
wife beater (two conviction -- one resulting in incarceration) user
and abuser of illegal drugs (self admitted and one conviction for OWI)
and child abuser (self admitted and on Iowa's Child Abuse Registry)
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote:

>Kent, Do you REALLY think you are WINNING?

Asked and answered. Did you missed the post where I answered?
If you really are that dense, I can't help you. I can't dumb
down my answer any further than I have. I suppose you'll just continue
to PROVE your total INABILITY to learn by asking the questions after
they've been answered, again and again.
You, on the other hand, haven't responded to the news given you
in that same post that you are losing. Notice the flock of families no
longer coming to this dead end you dream you control?
They have moved on with Kane (presuming he's still alive) and Dan
and other's here from the past each of whom provided them with REAL
help against CPS.
How you doing in your desire to con families and steer them into
CPS clutches these days, Greg? If your behavior on Usenet is an
accurate indication, you've failed to con any families into trusting
you for a while. Not for lack of trying, I'm sure.
How much do you HATE losing? LOL
If only you didn't NEED my attention to the degree you
consistently PROVE you do, it's quite possible you might be
sacrificing parents to CPS to this day. Sadly, you're so screwed up
you actually presented the PROOF that you're a CPS shill. I simply
had to bring people's attention to the PROOF you provided.

[Kent Wills]

Impossible when it's not true, as is the case with your claim.

>
>Until we meet again, enjoy the day.

I shall. Thank you.
BTW, how is that not paying attention to me thing going? Maybe I
should play Power Ball this weekend. Nah, since I am your singular
obsession, as PROVED by your posting profile on Google, it's not an
indication of psychic ability to KNOW you would continue to post to
and about me after you stated you wouldn't.