Where's proof of Glen Frohman's CONVICTION?
Greegor
> On Nov 5, 4:21 pm, womanGoddess <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Nov 2, 10:03 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 2, 1:17 pm, TOP <T...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > > > Going for plausible deniability again, Hanson?
>
> > > > Why did you avoid the archives? Searching on google news withOUT going
> > > > to the year, or withOUT using the archives, returns only recent news. It
> > > > says so on the google news search page.
>
> > > > Of course you innocently missed that, right?
>
> > > > But then you have never failed to use archives before to stalk others.
> > > > Mistake or lie. You tell us.
>
> > >http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Glen+Frohman+pirated&btnG=Sear...
>
> > > > Care to explain all your lies about Frohman, or did you just ""not
> > > > know?"" LOL
>
> > > > TOP (The Other Pangborn)
>
> > > The best it shows is an indictment and a partner who turned states
> > > evidence.
> > > Why is there no story about CONVICTION?
> > > You DO know that an indictment is not a conviction, right?
>
> > >http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DDNB&p_theme=d...
>
> > >http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0F5...
>
> > > CHARGES SAY MAN PIRATED VIDEOS
> > > Illegally taped concerts sold
> > > BYLINE: Wes Hills Dayton Daily News
> > > DATE: August 8, 2002
> > > PUBLICATION: Dayton Daily News (OH)
> > > EDITION: CITY
> > > SECTION: LOCAL
> > > PAGE: B1
>
> > > DAYTON - A Troy man was indicted Wednesday on charges he conspired to
> > > sell on the Internet pirated videos of the Dave Matthews Band, Bruce
> > > Springsteen and other performers.
>
> > > Glen Frohman of 513 W. Market St. also was charged with selling
> > > unauthorized videos on Oct. 5, 2001. Frohman faces 10 years in federal
> > > prison if convicted on both charges.
>
> > > The indictment claims Frohman, "on numerous occasions, would either
> > > alone or with the assistance of other individuals, tape performances
> > > of musical entertainers without the consent of said entertainers and
> > > offer these videotapes for sale on the Internet through a Web site.
>
> > > "Customers were instructed to send payment in the form of a check or
> > > money order" to a post office box in Troy controlled by Frohman, the
> > > indictment claims.
>
> > > The "overt acts" in the conspiracy allege Frohman:
>
> > > * Sent through the U.S. mail Oct. 5 a videotape of a live musical
> > > performance of the Dave Matthews Band.
>
> > > * Sent on Dec. 11 a videotape of a live musical performance of Bruce
> > > Springsteen.
>
> > > In a sworn statement, Postal Inspector M.E. Arthur details how the
> > > case developed:
>
> > > Arthur states that he was contacted Aug. 15 by the agent for musician
> > > Eric Johnson regarding Frohman advertising a Web site offering to sell
> > > concert videos from numerous musicians.
>
> > > On Sept. 25, Arthur states, he used an undercover name to place an
> > > order through the Web site for the Dave Matthews Band's Tabernacle and
> > > Austin City Limits .
>
> > > Arthur states that after he received the videos for $39, Wendy Yascur,
> > > coordinator of evidence control and anti-piracy special projects for
> > > the Recording Industry Association of America, was contacted.
>
> > > Yascur sent the videotapes to Coran Capshaw, manager for the Dave
> > > Matthews Band, who provided a sworn statement stating the band had
> > > "never licensed, consented to or otherwise authorized neither Glen
> > > Frohman . . . to manufacture, distribute or offer to sell the videos
> > > of the live musical performances."
>
> > > On Dec. 11, Arthur states, he ordered five more videos - live musical
> > > performances of Tori Amos, Bruce Springsteen, Eric Clapton, Prince and
> > > Phish - and received them after sending $153.
>
> > > Again, Yascur forwarded the tapes to the musicians' management
> > > companies to confirm they had been pirated.
>
> > > Arthur also cites an e-mail message allegedly sent by Frohman to Jim
> > > Weiss, president, The I Trade Group Inc., in which he states, "Yeah, I
> > > deal in bootleg tapes . . . (video currently, but it was audio for 15
> > > years.)"
>
> > > Frohman also states he has "been running an online business with my
> > > tapes for eight years."
>
> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy
> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's Troy
> > > residence on June 20.
> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>
> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
X > And the idiot once again posts something
X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
> > Heres a clue, Greg. Compare that with the list of MPAA convictions on
> > the web site whose addie I posted some weeks ago. If you actually
> > have some cognitive thought, you can easily figure out which
> > conviction is his,
>
> > Moe
> > Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
> > " A vampire cop? REALLY?"
> > "http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
>
> > Know your scum---http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>
> Oh greg, here's where I posted Frohman's convict number:
Moe > I even had a link where people can see for themselves in the
post.
The link is broken and as far as I can tell never did work.
http://inmateloc.bop.gov/locatorservlet/gov.bop.inmatelocator.FindInmateHttpServle
Let's break that down:
Dead. Is it in the internet archive?
What STATE would that be for?
Why no designation of state or Federal?
Why is there an http in the MIDDLE of that link?
Why is the word servlet chopped off even
way back in 2004?
http://inmateloc.bop.gov/locatorservlet/gov.bop.inmatelocator.FindInmateHttpServle
How could this LINK have EVER worked with
http in the middle and servlet chopped off?
You said people could check for themselves.
But that's not really true, is it Maureen?
Moe > So Greg, are you still claiming that he was never convicted?
I never claimed that he wasn't convicted.
I claimed you stalked him for over 10 years
and haven't posted online verifiable PROOF
that he was CONVICTED.
I saw proof he was indicted, and one of your
anonymous henchmen posted it as if proof
of indictment was proof of conviction.
Did you refer to 43481-061 in any other posts online?
Is that a state or Federal number?
You DO know that an indictment is NOT a conviction, right, Moe?
krp
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2heaf5lpa04mekmmk...@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:17:04 -0800 (PST), Greegor <gree...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [Snips for brevity]
>
>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy
>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's Troy
>>> > > residence on June 20.
>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>>>
>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>>
>>X > And the idiot once again posts something
>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>>
>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>
> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not
> allow for the copying of the entire work.
Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous "Betamax"
case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
krp
>>>
>>>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy
>>>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's
>>>>> > > Troy
>>>>> > > residence on June 20.
>>>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>>>>>
>>>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>>>>
>>>>X > And the idiot once again posts something
>>>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>>>>
>>>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
>>>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>>>
>>> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously.
>>> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not
>>> allow for the copying of the entire work.
>>
>>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous
>>"Betamax"
>>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
>
You can't be THAT stupid. Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sony_Corp._of_America_v._Universal_City_Studios,_Inc.
READ you illiterate ASSHOLE;
"Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of
individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting
does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use."
http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=betamaxcase
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technology/articles/groksterprimer_033805.htm
Now what IDIOTIC comeback can we expect from our resident IDIOT POLACK????
Greegor
X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
G > So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
G > know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
KBW > Fair use allows you to copy portions for
KBW > discussion. It does not allow for the
KBW > copying of the entire work.
KBW > I've explained this to you in the past.
Got a LINK to where you ""explained"" this in the past?
KBW > I even cited where in copyright law you
KBW > will find this.
All the better for you to LINK to same!
KBW > Yes, you think you're exempt from all
KBW > criminal and civil law. Your record, in
KBW > addition to your current actions, proves this.
See further below regarding your record.
Kent, Please tell me what you THINK you know about
the FAIR USE exception to copyright law.
Please describe what the background and
INTENTION of the FAIR USE exception is.
Is this going to be another game where you
make strong claims and then when proven
wrong you blame the statements onto OTHERS?
Like when you claimed Kim is a male?
Please make it clear what parts you personally
BELIEVE and what parts you think you
can weasel out of and blame onto other
people you are parroting.
I am still fairly amused that some anonymous
schmuck thought he had PROVED Glen
had been convicted using only proof that
Glen had been INDICTED.
You DO know that indictment is NOT conviction, right?
Do you think Moe does, and her idiot anonymous ""helper""?
Can you find any more on 43481-061 or Glen Frohman?
Was that YOU who posted the anonymous idiocy, Kent?
You seem to exhibit some subtle sort of ownership
of the hollow argument on Copyright v FAIR USE.
Kent Bradley Wills AKA Compuelf DOB Jan 8 1969 Felony Garage Burglar
used teen as accomplice
Kent's Appeal
IN PRINTED LAW BOOKS
West's North Western Reporter
Second Series
A Unit of the National Reporter System
Volume 696 N.W.2d
Cite as 696 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 2005)
Kent's Appeal
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/states/Iowa/04-0202.asp.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
http://www.assess.co.polk.ia.us/cgi-bin/seephoto/photosize.cgi?gp=802415452029&size=Large
Notice that KENT made claims re sale of 202 NW College apartment
building
That's geoparcel gp=802415452029
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
( Step by step instructions elsewhere with name Kent B Wills )
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
http://www.rogersgis.com/zoom/Residential_Development/indexfull.htm
http://www.arcountydata.com/county.asp?county=Benton
TWO of Kent Wills' usenet newsgroup identities:
Do It Yourself Instructions to look up Kent's record
Iowa Department of Corrections records for Kent
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
Name Kent Bradley Wills [ As Collected Sept 13, 2009 ]
Offender Number 1155768
Sex M
Birth Date 01/08/1969
Age 40
Location
Offense
County Of Commitment
Commitment Date
Duration
TDD/SDD *
* TDD = Tentative Discharge Date
* SDD = Supervision Discharge Date
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 12/16/2008
Probation C Felony Polk 12/16/2008
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 11/25/2003
IN PRINTED LAW BOOKS
West's North Western Reporter
Second Series
A Unit of the National Reporter System
Volume 696 N.W.2d
Cite as 696 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 2005)
Kent's Appeal
http://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/states/Iowa/04-0202.asp.html
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=ia&vol=sc%5C20050506%5C04-0202&invol=1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 31 / 04-0202
Filed May 6, 2005
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
KENT BRADLEY WILLS,
Appellant.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Polk
County, Michael D. Huppert, Judge.
Defendant appeals claiming ineffective
assistance of counsel. AFFIRMED.
Linda Del Gallo, State Appellate Defender,
and Tricia Johnston, Assistant State
Appellate Defender, for appellant.
Thomas J. Miller, Attorney General, Kevin
Cmelik, Assistant Attorney General, John P.
Sarcone, County Attorney, and John Judisch,
Assistant County Attorney, for appellee.
WIGGINS, Justice.
Kent Wills appeals his conviction for
second-degree burglary contending that
an attached garage is a separate occupied
structure from that of the living quarters
of the residence. In this appeal, we must
determine whether trial counsel was
ineffective for (1) failing to move for
judgment of acquittal on the basis there
was insufficient evidence to convict Wills
of second-degree burglary when he entered
an attached garage of a residence when no
persons were present in the garage, but
when persons were present in the living
quarters; and (2) failing to object to a
jury instruction based on this same
argument. Because we find there was no
legal basis for the motion for judgment
of acquittal or the objection to the jury
instruction, Wills' trial counsel was not
ineffective. Accordingly, we affirm the
judgment of the district court.
I. Background Facts and Proceedings.
Around 1 a.m., an Ankeny resident called
the local police to report that a car
alarm sounded in the resident's
neighborhood. The city dispatched a police
officer to the location. Observing nothing
unusual, the officer left the area, only
to be stopped a couple of blocks later
by a person who informed the officer he
had witnessed someone running from the
area of the car alarm. As the officer
started driving back to the area of the
car alarm, he noticed a person walking
on the sidewalk. The officer asked the
person, a minor, if he had noticed anybody
running from the area. The minor answered
that he had not. While the officer and
another officer were speaking to the minor,
another resident of the neighborhood
arrived in her car and informed the
officers that she had observed two people,
one of whom was heavy set with a blinking
light on his back pocket, walking in the
area of her neighbor's residence. She
observed the heavier-set individual, later
identified as Wills, enter her neighbor's
attached garage through an unlocked service
door. She further observed a smaller
individual standing by a van parked in
the neighbor's driveway.
The officers eventually let the minor leave
even though they found a large amount of
coins, a flashlight, and an electronic
pocket organizer in his pockets. After
releasing the minor, the police officers
drove to the residence where the neighbor
observed the two suspicious people and
woke the owner. The owner, his wife,
and two daughters were in the residence
sleeping at the time. After a search
of his vehicles, the owner discovered
change and an electronic pocket organizer
were missing from the vehicles. The
owner's daughter reported a diamond ring
and some change were missing from her
vehicle. The officers then contacted
the minor's parents, who informed the
officers the minor was with Wills. After
the officers questioned the minor again,
he admitted his involvement in the theft
and implicated Wills in the burglary.
Although Wills denied involvement in the
burglary, the officers arrested him.
The State filed a trial information
charging Wills with second-degree
burglary. The State later amended the
information to include two additional
charges of burglary in the third degree
and using a juvenile to commit an
indictable offense.
The jury returned a verdict finding Wills
guilty of the crimes of burglary in the
second degree, burglary in the third
degree, and using a juvenile to commit
an indictable offense. Wills appeals his
conviction for second-degree burglary
claiming ineffective assistance of
counsel.
II. Scope of Review.
Claims of ineffective assistance of counsel
are derived from the Sixth Amendment of the
United States Constitution. Strickland v.
Washington, 466 U.S. 668, 684-86, 104 S.
Ct. 2052, 2063-64, 80 L. Ed. 2d 674, 691-93
(1984). Our review for a claim involving
violations of the Constitution is de novo.
State v. Fintel, 689 N.W.2d 95, 100
(Iowa 2004). We normally preserve
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
for postconviction relief actions. State
v. Carter, 602 N.W. 2d 818, 820 (Iowa 1999).
However, we will address such claims on
direct appeal when the record is sufficient
to permit a ruling. State v. Artzer,
609 N.W.2d 526, 531 (Iowa 2000). The
appellate record in the present case is
sufficient to allow us to address Wills'
ineffective-assistance-of-counsel claims
on direct appeal.
In order for a defendant to succeed on a
claim of ineffective assistance of counsel,
the defendant must prove: (1) counsel
failed to perform an essential duty and
(2) prejudice resulted. Id. Prejudice
results when "there is a reasonable
probability that, but for the counsel's
unprofessional errors, the result of the
proceeding would have been different."
State v. Hopkins, 576 N.W.2d 374, 378
(Iowa 1998) (quoting Strickland, 466
U.S. at 694, 104 S. Ct. at 2068,
80 L. Ed. 2d at 698). Wills' arguments
also raise issues of statutory
interpretation, which we review for
correction of errors at law. State v.
Wolford Corp., 689 N.W.2d 471, 473 (Iowa 2004).
III. Analysis.
To find Wills guilty of burglary in the
second degree, the State had to prove
Wills perpetrated a burglary "in or
upon an occupied structure in which one
or more persons are present . . . ." Iowa
Code § 713.5(2) (2003) (emphasis added).
In this appeal, Wills first contends his
trial counsel was ineffective for failing
to move for a judgment of acquittal on
the basis there was insufficient evidence
to support a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage, there were persons
present in or upon the occupied structure.
Wills concedes the garage was an occupied
structure, but argues the living quarters
and the attached garage are separate and
independent occupied structures; therefore,
the jury could not have found there were
people present in the attached garage
at the time of the burglary.
The Code defines an "occupied structure" as:
[A]ny building, structure, appurtenances
to buildings and structures, land, water
or air vehicle, or similar place adapted
for overnight accommodation of persons,
or occupied by persons for the purpose of
carrying on business or other activity
therein, or for the storage or safekeeping
of anything of value. Such a structure
is an "occupied structure" whether or not
a person is actually present.
Id. § 702.12.
Wills relies on State v. Smothers, 590
N.W.2d 721 (Iowa 1999), to argue the
garage and the living quarters are separate
and independent occupied structures. In
Smothers, two separate and distinct
businesses connected by interior fire doors
were operated in the same structure.
590 N.W.2d at 723. We held the defendant
committed two burglaries by entering each
business because "[t]he facility's
construction history and physical make-up
demonstrate that the portions are
independent working units which constitute
'[a] combination of materials to form a
construction for occupancy [or] use.'" Id.
Smothers is not at odds with the present
case because the living quarters and the
garage are not separate or independent
units of the residence.
Our review of the record reveals the garage
in question was a three-car attached garage
separated from the living quarters by a
door. The same roof covered the garage as
the rest of the residence. The living
quarters surrounded the garage on two sides.
It was structurally no different from any
other room in the residence.
The garage was a functional part of the
residence. On the night of the incident,
the door was unlocked. The owner of the
residence used two stalls in the garage to
park the family vehicles. The owner used
the third stall for his motorcycle. As
such, the garage and the living quarters
are a single "structure" or "building"
functioning as an integral part of the
family residence. Thus, the residence
including the garage is a single
"occupied structure" under section 702.12.
See, e.g., People v. Ingram, 48 Cal. Rptr.
2d 256 (Ct. App.1995) (holding defendant's
entry into an attached garage constituted
first-degree burglary because the garage
was attached to the house; therefore,
burglary of the garage was burglary of
an inhabited dwelling house); People v.
Cunningham, 637 N.E.2d 1247, 1252 (Ill.
App. Ct. 1994) (holding "ordinarily an
attached garage is a 'dwelling' because
it is part of the structure in which
the owner or occupant lives");
State v. Lara, 587 P.2d 52, 53
(N.M. Ct. App. 1978) (holding "burglary
of the [attached] garage was burglary of
the dwelling house because the garage was
a part of the structure used as living
quarters"); People v. Green, 141 A.D.2d
760, 761 (N.Y. App. Div. 1988) (holding
"[s]ince the garage in the present case
was structurally part of a building
which was used for overnight lodging of
various persons, it must be considered
as part of a dwelling"); White v. State,
630 S.W. 2d 340, 342 (Tex. Ct. App. 1982)
(holding an attached garage under the
same roof as the home would be considered
a habitation within the purview of the
penal code because the garage is a
structure appurtenant to and connected
to the house); State v. Murbach, 843 P.
2d 551, 553 (Wash. Ct. App 1993)
(holding the definition of a dwelling
under Washington's burglary statute
included an attached garage).
Had Wills' trial counsel moved for a
judgment of acquittal on the basis there
was insufficient evidence to support
a finding that at the time Wills
entered the garage there were no persons
present in or upon the occupied
structure, it would have been overruled
by the court because the owner and his
family were present in the residence at
the time of the burglary.
Wills also claims his counsel was
ineffective for failing to object to
the jury instruction used by the district
court on the same ground; that the
living quarters were a separate and
independent occupied structure from the
attached garage. The instruction as
given stated:
The State must prove all of the following
elements of Burglary in the Second
Degree as to Count I:
1. On or about the 12th day of August,
2003, the defendant or someone he aided
and abetted broke into or entered the
residence at . . . .
2. The residence at . . . was an occupied
structure as defined in Instruction No. 29.
3. The defendant or the person he aided
and abetted did not have permission or
authority to break into the residence at ...
4. The defendant or the person he aided
and abetted did so with the specific
intent to commit a theft therein.
5. During the incident persons were present
in or upon the occupied structure.
If the State has proved all of the elements,
the defendant is guilty of Burglary in the
Second Degree. If the State has failed to prove
any of the elements, the defendant is not
guilty of Burglary in the Second Degree and
you will then consider the charge of
Attempted Burglary in the Second Degree
explained in Instruction No. 21.
(Emphasis added.)
Wills' claim is without merit. As we have
discussed, the residence is the one and
only "occupied structure" under the facts
of this case. Had Wills' trial counsel
made this objection to the instruction,
it would have been overruled.
Therefore, Wills' trial counsel is not
ineffective for failing to move
for a judgment of acquittal or objecting
to the instruction because there was no
legal basis for the motion or objection.
See State v. Hochmuth, 585 N.W.2d 234,
238 (Iowa 1998) (holding trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise an
issue that has no merit).
IV. Disposition.
We affirm the judgment of the district
court because Wills' trial counsel was
not ineffective for failing to raise
meritless issues.
AFFIRMED.
---------------------------------
Pay close attention to past owners of 202 NW College Ave.
Kent made affirmative claims about the property online.
Kent's folks sold it in 1994 while Kent lived there!
On 03/30/1999 Sweeney's filed on Kent for UNPAID RENT!
GeoParcel 8024-15-452-029 District/Parcel 181/00392-048-000
[ As Collected Sept 13, 2009 ]
Seller: WILLS, FRED A. & JANET R.
Buyer: THE SWEENEY REVOCABLE GRANTOR TRUST
04/26/1994 135,000 D/Deed 7010/188
-
Seller: SHELDAHL, ERIC A.
Buyer: WILLS, FRED
01/02/1990 130,500 D/Deed 6189/972
A Larger photo:
http://www.assess.co.polk.ia.us/cgi-bin/seephoto/photosize.cgi?gp=802415452029&size=Large
Notice that name SWEENEY above?
Check this out!
Iowa Courts Docket and Disposition web site
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
Iowa Courts
Online Search
< Start A Case Search Here! > click
Iowa Courts Online Search
Search Selection
Under Trial Court < click on Case Search >
Wills Kent B
02401 ESPR015146 INA J WILLS ESTATE
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT ******
05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT
05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRES VS KENT
05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRES VS KENT
05771 STAN201670 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 STAN210929 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
A list of case numbers will be presented.
Click on the SWEENEY case, 4th one down.
Under the "Filings" tab:
JUDGEMENT DEFAULT BRANDT GREGORY D 08/25/1999 09/01/1999 09/01/1999
Comments: $156.25 7.244% FROM 03/30/99
COMPUTER GENERATED NOTICE 05/11/1999 05/11/1999 05/11/1999
Comments: Notice of Proof of Claim
RETURN OF ORIGINAL NOTICE 04/21/1999 04/23/1999 04/23/1999
Comments: 4/10/99 KENT PERS
37.60
VERIFICATION OF ACCT HAS BEEN FILED 03/30/1999 03/30/1999
03/30/1999
SMALL CLAIMS ORIGINAL NOTICE SWEENEY RENTALS 03/30/1999 03/30/1999
03/30/1999
Comments: UNPAID RENT
Under the "Financial" Tab:
Summary Orig Paid Due
COSTS 98.60 31.00 67.60
FINE 0.00 0.00 0.00
SURCHARGE 0.00 0.00 0.00
RESTITUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00
OTHER 238.46 0.00 238.46
-----------
$337.06 $31.00 $306.06
SUPPORT/ALIMONY N/A 0.00 N/A
----------------------------------------
Kent's 2000 Felony, first of TWO in Iowa
WILLS, KENT BRADLEY 05771 FECR145250 (POLK)
01/24/2000 Offense Date THEFT 2ND DEGREE - 1978 (FELD) WITHDRAWN
01/24/2000 Offense Date THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
03/07/2000 DEFERRED JUDGMENT (At that time) Sentence: 365 Day(s)
03/07/2000 PROBATION INFORMAL; 8/07/01-TRNFRD TO FORMAL 365 Day(s)
03/07/2000 COMMUNITY SERVICE 50 Hour(s)
03/07/2000 REFERRED TO OTHER AGENCY 1ST TIME OFFENDER CLASS
08/07/2001 JAIL PROB HRG 11 Day(s)
08/07/2001 JAIL PROB HRG 11 Day(s) TIME SERVED
08/07/2001 PROBATION EXTENDED PROB HRG
04/16/2002 PROBATION EXTENDED TO 08/06/03
04/16/2002 IMPOSED 7 Day(s)
04/16/2002 OTHER/MISCELLANEOUS PROB HRG 6 Day(s)
04/16/2002 DETENTION PROB HRG 6 Day(s)
08/07/2003 PRIOR ORDERS CONTINUED PROB EXTENDED UNTIL 8-06-04
11/26/2003 REVOKED PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL
11/26/2003 PLACEMENT HRG PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL120 Day(s)
11/26/2003 SUSPEND PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; TIME SERVED 106 Day(s)
11/26/2003 COMMUNITY CORR PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL 14 Day(s)
( When Kent's second Felony revoked the rest of his Probation.)
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/
Iowa Courts
Online Search
< Start A Case Search Here! > click
Iowa Courts Online Search
Search Selection
Under Trial Court < click on Case Search >
Wills Kent B
02401 ESPR015146 INA J WILLS ESTATE
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT ******
05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT
05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRES VS KENT
05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRES VS KENT
05771 STAN201670 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 STAN210929 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
A list of case numbers will be presented.
Click on case FECR145250, 2nd one down.
Under the "[Criminal Charges/Disposition]" tab:
Charges, Dispositions, Sentences
Title: STATE VS KENT B WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR145250 (POLK)
Citation Number:
Defendant: WILLS, KENT BRADLEY
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 01 Charge
Charge:
714.2(2) Description: THEFT 2ND DEGREE - 1978 (FELD)
Offense Date: 01/24/2000 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0386367-01
Adjudication
Charge:
714.2(2) Description: THEFT 2ND DEGREE - 1978 (FELD)
Adj.:
DNU-WITHDRAWN Adj.Date: 03/07/2000
Adj.Judge:
WILSON, ROBERT D
Comments: AMENDED TI FILED
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(2) Description: THEFT 2ND DEGREE - 1978 (FELD)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: WITHDRAWN
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 02 Charge
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Offense Date: 01/24/2000 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0386367-02
Adjudication
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Adj.:
DEFERRED Adj.Date: 03/07/2000
Adj.Judge:
WILSON, ROBERT D
Comments:
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: DEFERRED JUDGMENT
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 365 Day(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 365 Day(s)
Comment:
INFORMAL;8/07/01-TRNFRD TO FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 50 Hour(s)
Comment:
TO BE DETERMINED BY PROBATION
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
03/07/2000 Sentence: REFERRED TO OTHER AGENCY
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: WILSON, ROBERT D
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
1ST TIME OFFENDER CLASS
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
08/07/2001 Sentence: JAIL
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: JACOBS, LOUISE M
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 11 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
08/07/2001 Sentence: TIME SERVED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: JACOBS, LOUISE M
Facility Type:
J Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 11 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
08/07/2001 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: JACOBS, LOUISE M
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROB HRG-4/16/02-PROBATION EXTENDED TO 08/06/03
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
04/16/2002 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: COPPOLA, CAROL L
Facility Type:
J Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 7 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
04/16/2002 Sentence: OTHER/MISCELLANEOUS
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: COPPOLA, CAROL L
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 6 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
04/16/2002 Sentence: DETENTION
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: COPPOLA, CAROL L
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 6 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
08/07/2003 Sentence: PRIOR ORDERS CONTINUED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: MCGHEE, ODELL
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROB EXTENDED UNTIL 8-06-04
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
11/26/2003 Sentence: REVOKED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: SMITH, JOE E
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
11/26/2003 Sentence: PLACEMENT
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: SMITH, JOE E
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 120 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
11/26/2003 Sentence: SUSPEND
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: SMITH, JOE E
Facility Type:
J Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 106 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; TIME SERVED
Sentence
Charge:
714.2(3) Description: THEFT 3RD DEGREE - 1978 (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
11/26/2003 Sentence: COMMUNITY CORRECTIONS
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: SMITH, JOE E
Facility Type:
J Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 14 Day(s)
Comment:
PROB HRG; PROBATION/DJ REVOKED; JAIL
---------------------------------------
Charges, Dispositions, Sentences
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
Citation Number:
Count 01
08/12/2003 Offense Date BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
12/17/2003 Adj.Date: GUILTY
01/16/2004 Sentence 10 Year(s) SUSPENDED PRISON
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION 2 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FT DSM FACILITY-MAX
BENEFITS
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE 150 Hour(s)
12/17/2003 Sentence: JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
Count 02
08/12/2003 Offense BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR VEHICLE
(AGMS)
12/17/2003 GUILTY
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON Duration: 2 Year(s) SUSPENDED PRISON
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION Duration: 2 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FT DSM FACILITY-MAX
BENEFITS
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE Duration: 150 Hour(s)
12/17/2003 Sentence: JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/06/09
Count 03
08/12/2003 USING JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE OFFENSE(FELC)709A.6
(2)
12/17/2003 GUILTY
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON Duration: 10 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON 10 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION 2 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FT DSM FACILITY-MAX
BENEFITS
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE 150 Hour(s)
12/17/2003 Sentence: JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
Charges, Dispositions, Sentences
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
Citation Number:
Count 01 Charge
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Offense Date: 08/12/2003 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0668408-01
Adjudication
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Adj.:
DNU-GUILTY Adj.Date: 12/17/2003
Adj.Judge:
HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Comments: GUILTY
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 150 Hour(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
12/17/2003 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
Sentence
Charge:
713.5 Description: BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 02 Charge
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Offense Date: 08/12/2003 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0668408-02
Adjudication
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Adj.:
DNU-GUILTY Adj.Date: 12/17/2003
Adj.Judge:
HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Comments: GUILTY
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 150 Hour(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
12/17/2003 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
Sentence
Charge:
713.6A(2)-A Description: BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR
VEHICLE (AGMS)
Sentence Date:
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/06/09
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Count 03 Charge
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Offense Date: 08/12/2003 Arrest Date: Against Type:
DPS Number:
0668408-03
Adjudication
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Adj.:
DNU-GUILTY Adj.Date: 12/17/2003
Adj.Judge:
HUPPERT, MICHAEL D
Comments: GUILTY
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 10 Year(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 2 Year(s)
Comment:
FORMAL
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
R Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE
Appeal:
AFFR Sen.Judge: OVROM, ELIZA
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
Y Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer: N
Fine Amount:
Duration: 150 Hour(s)
Comment:
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
12/17/2003 Sentence: PROBATION EXTENDED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: Y
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
Sentence
Charge:
709A.6(2) Description: USING A JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE
OFFENSE (FELC)
Sentence Date:
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED
Appeal:
Sen.Judge: HUTCHISON, ROBERT A
Facility Type:
Attorney: N
Restitution:
N Drug: N Extradition: N
Lic.Revoked:
N DDS: N Batterer:
Fine Amount:
Duration:
Comment:
PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
-------------------------------------
Filings
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
ORDER OF DISCHARGE OVROM ELIZA 12/16/2008 12/16/2008 12/16/2008
Comments: FROM PROBATION
OTHER EVENT DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 12/16/2008 12/16/2008
12/16/2008
Comments: FIELD DISCHARGE REPORT
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 12/16/2008 12/16/2008 12/16/2008
Comments: REVOCATION HEARING SET FOR 1/07/2009 IS CANCELLED
DEFENDANT HAS NOT PAID IN FULL FINANCIAL
OBLIGATIONS
ORDER FOR PROBATION REVOCATION HEARING MOISAN CYNTHIA M 12/05/2008
12/05/2008 12/05/2008
Comments: ON 1/7/09 AT 9:30AM RM204
PROBATION REVOCATION 12/05/2008 12/05/2008 12/05/2008
Comments: REPORT OF VIOLATIONS FILED BY JAN HORNOCKER
FORMAL PROBATION HUTCHISON ROBERT A 01/25/2006 01/26/2006
01/26/2006
Comments: EXTENDED TO 01/16/09 OR UNTIL CONDITIONS ARE MET
COURT ORDERED PAYMENT PLAN 01/13/2006 01/13/2006 01/13/2006
OTHER ORDER HUTCHISON ROBERT A 01/11/2006 01/13/2006 01/13/2006
Comments: DEFT'S PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09; DEFT TO
COMPLETE
CONDITIONS LISTED
OTHER EVENT 09/15/2005 09/15/2005 09/15/2005
Comments: THE SUPREME COURT RETURNED FILE, PSI, 4 TRANSCRIPTS,
AND 1 ENVELOPE OF EXHIBITS
OTHER EVENT APPELLATE DEFENDER'S OFFICE 06/09/2005 06/13/2005
06/13/2005
Comments: STATEMENT OF HOURS
15.9 HOURS = $795.00
ATTORNEY - GRETA TRUMAN
OTHER EVENT CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 06/02/2005 09/15/2005
09/15/2005
Comments: BILL OF COSTS
$27.50 TAXED AGAINST THE APPELLANT AND PAYABLE
TO
THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
#04-0202
OTHER ORDER SUPREME COURT OF IOWA 06/02/2005 09/15/2005 09/15/2005
Comments: RE DEFT'S APPEAL CLAIMING INEFFECTIVE COUNSEL:
JUDGEMENT AFFIRMED
#04-0202
PROCEDENDO CLERK OF SUPREME COURT 06/02/2005 09/15/2005 09/15/2005
Comments: AFFIRMED
PROCEED W/DILIGENCE AS IF THERE HAD BEEN NO
APPEAL
#04-0202
COMMUNITY SERVICE 05/25/2004 05/27/2004 05/27/2004
Comments: 135 HRS COMPLETED 5/24/04
INDIGENT DEFENSE CLAIM FORM TAYLOR KAREN 05/11/2004 05/13/2004
05/13/2004
Comments: $1150
ELECTRONIC FILING
OTHER EVENT 04/26/2004 04/28/2004 04/28/2004
Comments: SUPREME COURT REC'D 1 FILE, 1 PSI ENVELOPE,
1 EXHIBIT(1 ENVELOPE DATED 1/21/04)
REC'D 4/20/04
OTHER ORDER NICKERSON DON 04/23/2004 04/27/2004 04/27/2004
Comments: THE BALANCE OF ATTNY FEE AND CC SHALL BE
CONVERTED TO 135 HRS COMM SERVICE
TO BE COMPLETED FROM FT DSM FACILITY
OR TRANSFER TO INTERSTATE COMPACT
COMMUNITY SERVICE 04/22/2004 04/23/2004 04/23/2004
Comments: 150 HRS COMPLETED
APRIL 8, 2004
OTHER EVENT 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004
Comments: RECD CHANGE OF ADDRESS FOR DEFT
OTHER EVENT 04/20/2004 04/20/2004 04/20/2004
Comments: FILE AND PSI SENT TO THE SUPREME COURT
ONE ENVELOPE OF EXHIBITS FILED 1/21/04
SENT TO THE SUPREME COURT
OTHER EVENT 04/19/2004 04/19/2004 04/19/2004
Comments: SUP CRT RECEIVED 2 TRANSCRIPTS OF PROCEEDINGS
FILED 4/1/04 (VOL I & II)
SUP CRT 04-202
OTHER EVENT 04/06/2004 05/18/2004 05/18/2004
Comments: 2 TRANSCRIPTS FILED 4/1/04 SENT TO THE
SUPREME COURT
DNU - COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT MAXEY REBECCA 04/01/2004 04/05/2004
04/05/2004
Comments: OF PROCEEDINGS ON 12/16/03
VOLUME II
DNU - COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT MAXEY REBECCA 04/01/2004 04/05/2004
04/05/2004
Comments: OF PROCEEDINGS ON 12/15/03
VOLUME I
OTHER EVENT 03/31/2004 03/31/2004 03/31/2004
Comments: EXHIBITS RETURNED
OTHER EVENT 03/31/2004 03/31/2004 03/31/2004
Comments: ENVELOPE OF EXHIBITS CHECKED OUT TO COURT
REPORTER R.M.
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 03/29/2004 03/31/2004 03/31/2004
Comments: MOTION IS GRANTED REGARDING REVIEW OF
PAYMENT OF COURT APPOINTED ATTY FEES AND
THE STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER IS ORDERED TO MAKE
PAYMENT AS REQUESTED.
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 03/29/2004 03/30/2004 03/31/2004
ENTERED IN ERROR
Comments: STATE PUBLIC DEFENDER SHALL MAKE PAYMENT AS
REQUESTED.
MOTION 03/18/2004 03/19/2004 03/19/2004
Comments: TO ENLARGE TIME FOR DOCKETING FILED BY
ASSISTANT APPELLATE DEFENDER
ORDER SETTING HEARING OVROM ELIZA 03/15/2004 03/16/2004 03/16/2004
Comments: ON MOTION TO REVIEW ACTION RE:PAYMENT OF
COURT APPOINTED ATTY.
3/29/04 8:15AM RM209A
MOTION 03/15/2004 03/16/2004 03/16/2004
Comments: FOR REVIEW OF ACTION REGARDING PAYMENT
OF COURT APPOINTED ATTORNEY FEES
FILED BY ATDF
OTHER EVENT 03/11/2004 03/11/2004 03/11/2004
Comments: SUPREME COURT RECVD 2 TRANSCRIPTS OF SENTENCING
ON 1/16/04 AND STATUS CONF ON 12/12/03 FILED
3/1/04
04-202
OTHER EVENT 03/09/2004 03/09/2004 03/09/2004
Comments: 2 TRANSCRIPTS FILED 3/1/04 SENT TO THE
SUPREME COURT
INDIGENT DEFENSE CLAIM FORM TAYLOR KAREN 03/09/2004 03/18/2004
03/18/2004
Comments: $1350.00 ELECTRONIC FILING
DNU - COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT HILGENBERG VIVIAN ROSE 03/01/2004
03/03/2004 03/03/2004
Comments: OF STATUS CONFERENCE ON 12/12/2003
DNU - COURT REPORTER TRANSCRIPT HILGENBERG VIVIAN ROSE 03/01/2004
03/03/2004 03/03/2004
Comments: OF SENTENCING ON 01/16/2004
OTHER EVENT APPELLATE DEFENDER'S OFFICE 02/26/2004 02/27/2004
02/27/2004
Comments: COMBINED CERTIFICATE
OTHER EVENT 02/24/2004 02/24/2004 02/24/2004
Comments: DOCKET ENTRIES RECEIVED BY SUPREME COURT
2-10-04; SUPREME COURT NUMBER 04-202
ORDER APPOINTING OVROM ELIZA 02/18/2004 02/19/2004 02/19/2004
Comments: ORDER GRANTING K TAYLOR TO W/D
APPELLATE COUNSEL IS APPT
OTHER APPLICATION 02/18/2004 02/19/2004 02/19/2004
Comments: TO WITHDRAW
OTHER EVENT 02/10/2004 02/10/2004 02/10/2004
Comments: DOCKET ENTRIES AND CERTIFIED COPY OF NOTICE
OF APPEAL SENT TO THE SUPREME COURT
OTHER EVENT TAYLOR KAREN A 02/09/2004 02/10/2004 02/10/2004
Comments: COURT APPOINTED BILLING
47 HOURS = $2500
OTHER EVENT TAYLOR KAREN 02/09/2004 02/10/2004 02/10/2004
ENTERED IN ERROR
Comments: COURT
NOTICE OF APPEAL TAYLOR KAREN A 02/06/2004 02/09/2004 02/09/2004
Comments: FILED BY ATDF
OTHER EVENT 01/23/2004 01/27/2004 01/27/2004
Comments: ADDENDUM TO PSI REPORT
EXHIBIT MAXEY REBECCA 01/21/2004 01/21/2004 01/21/2004
Comments: STATE'S EXHIBITS
1-$13.21; 2-$24.25 (IN VAULT); 3-LIGHT;
4&5-WRITTEN STATEMENT; 6,7,8-DIAGRAM
1 ENVELOPE & VAULT
OTHER EVENT 01/20/2004 01/26/2004 01/26/2004
Comments: VORP
VICTIM DOES NOT WANT TO VORP
NO RESTITUTION ISSUES AT THIS TIME
VICTIM DENNIS AND JAMIE WIEBEN
COURT ORDERED PAYMENT PLAN 01/20/2004 01/20/2004 01/20/2004
COURT ORDERED PAYMENT PLAN 01/16/2004 01/16/2004 01/16/2004
COURT REPORTER CERTIFICATE HILGENBERG VIVIAN ROSE 01/16/2004
01/20/2004 01/20/2004
Comments: $15.00
PRE SENTENCE INVESTIGATION REPORT PSI 01/16/2004 01/16/2004
01/16/2004
ORDER OF DISPOSITION OVROM ELIZA 01/16/2004 01/16/2004 01/16/2004
Comments: FOUND GUILTY BY JURY/PRISON-SUSPENDED; FORMAL
PROBATION; FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS;
COMMUNITY SERVED; RESTITUTION-SUPP ORDER TO
FOLLOW; VORP; APPEAL BOND $13000 C/S
ORDER OF DISPOSITION OVROM ELIZA 01/16/2004 01/16/2004
01/16/2004
ENTERED IN ERROR
Comments: PLED GUILTY/PRISON-SUSPENDED; FORMAL
PROBATION; FT DSM FACILITY-MAX BENEFITS;
COMMUNITY SERVED; RESTITUTION-SUPP ORDER TO
FOLLOW; VORP; APPEAL BOND $13000 C/S
MITTIMUS TO STATE INSTITUTION WILLS KENT BRADLEY 01/16/2004
01/16/2004 01/16/2004
Comments: **FORT DES MOINES**
RETURN OF SERVICE - OTHER POLK COUNTY SHERIFF'S OFFICE 12/23/2003
12/26/2003 12/26/2003
Comments: TRANSPORT COSTS $96.24
OTHER EVENT 12/22/2003 12/23/2003 12/23/2003
Comments: DEFT'S COPY OF ORDER TO EXCEED STATE FEE
LIMITATION RETURNED UNDELIVERABLE
COURT REPORTER CERTIFICATE MAXEY REBECCA 12/17/2003 12/18/2003
12/18/2003
CRIMINAL VERDICT HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/17/2003 12/18/2003 12/18/2003
Comments: OF GUILTY TO BURGLARY 2ND, 3RD, AND USING A
JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE OFFENSE; DCS
WILL SUBMIT A PSI BY 1 WK PRIOR TO SENTENCING
DATE; PRESENTENCE CONF & SENTENCING 1-16-04
@ 8:30 AM IN RM 209A; BOND CONT
AMENDED TRIAL INFORMATION HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/17/2003 12/18/2003
12/18/2003
Comments: FILED BY JOHN JUDISCH
JURY SELECTION HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/17/2003 12/18/2003 12/18/2003
INSTRUCTIONS 12/17/2003 12/18/2003 12/18/2003
Comments: TO THE JURY AND STATEMENT OF THE CASE
OTHER ORDER HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/16/2003 12/17/2003 12/17/2003
Comments: JUV SEAN BILYEU SHALL BE TRANSFERRED TO THE
CUSTODY OF POLK CO SHERIFF FOR THE DURATION
OF HIS REQUIRED TESTIMONY/PRESENCE IN THIS
MATTER. SEAN BILYEU SHALL REMAIN IN THE
CUSTODY OF POLK CO SHERIFF OR ANY OTHER
LOCATION (MEYER HALL) DEEMED APPROPRIATE BY
THE SHERIFF UNTIL THE POLK CO SHERIFF CAN
EXECUTE THE TIMELY TRANSPORT OF SEAN BILYEU
FROM THE CUSTODY OF THE SHERIFF TO THE ELDORA
TRAINING CENTER.
OTHER ORDER HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/16/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003
Comments: DEFT TO BE RETURNED FROM ELDORA-COTTAGE 5
BY JIM TROTTER, INVESTIGATOR/CTY ATTY'S
OFFICE; DEFT CAN BE PRESENT AT HIS TESTIMONY
ON 12-16-03
OTHER ORDER HUPPERT MICHAEL D 12/15/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003
Comments: ATDF IS PERMITTED TO EXCEED GUIDELINE FOR
CT APPT ATTY IN THIS MATTER AND THAT THIS
ORDER SHALL INCLUED ALL FEES INCURRED AS OF
THE DATE OF THIS ORDER.
APPLICATION TO EXCEED FEES 12/15/2003 12/16/2003 12/16/2003
COURT REPORTER CERTIFICATE HILGENBERG VIVIAN ROSE 12/12/2003
12/17/2003 12/17/2003
MOTION IN LIMINE TAYLOR KAREN 12/12/2003 12/15/2003 12/15/2003
ORDER SETTING HEARING OVROM ELIZA 12/05/2003 12/08/2003 12/08/2003
Comments: STATUS CONF: 12/12/03 @ 10:00 AM RM 204
RETURN OF SERVICE ON SUBPEONA 11/20/2003 12/09/2003 12/09/2003
Comments: 4=$0
RETURN OF SERVICE ON SUBPEONA 11/18/2003 11/25/2003 11/25/2003
Comments: 3=$0
ORDER SETTING HEARING OVROM ELIZA 11/14/2003 11/14/2003 11/14/2003
Comments: STATUS CONFERENCE
11/13/03 9AM RM 204
ALL PARTIES MUST BE PRESENT
ORDER SETTING TRIAL OVROM ELIZA 11/13/2003 11/14/2003 11/14/2003
Comments: 12/15/03 @ 9:00 AM RM 204
WAIVER OF SPEEDY TRIAL TAYLOR KAREN 11/13/2003 11/14/2003
11/14/2003
Comments: LIMITED
RETURN OF SERVICE ON SUBPEONA 11/10/2003 11/12/2003 11/12/2003
Comments: 1 = $0
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF DAVID DUVALL
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF BETH ANN SKOGEN
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF NEIL LEMKE
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF DENNIS WIEBEN
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF NATALIE BALUKOFF
OTHER EVENT 11/10/2003 11/10/2003 11/10/2003
Comments: DEPOSITION OF SEAN BILYEU
RETURN OF SERVICE ON SUBPEONA 10/31/2003 11/04/2003 11/04/2003
Comments: 6=$0
AMENDED TRIAL INFORMATION OVROM ELIZA 10/31/2003 11/03/2003
11/03/2003
Comments: FILED BY JOHN JUDISCH
NOTICE WARD JAMES P 10/31/2003 11/03/2003 11/03/2003
Comments: OF ADDITIONAL WITNESSES
DNU - SUBPOENA PER DUCES TECUM 10/31/2003 11/03/2003 11/03/2003
Comments: 1 - $13.70
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: FOR DEPOSITIONS AND SERVICE
AT STATE EXPENSE
OTHER APPLICATION 10/21/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: FOR DEPOSITIONS AND SERVICE
AT STATE EXPENSE
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITION
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
NOTICE TAYLOR KAREN 10/20/2003 10/21/2003 10/21/2003
Comments: OF DEPOSITIONS
OTHER ORDER OVROM ELIZA 10/07/2003 10/08/2003 10/08/2003
Comments: ORDER ENTERED 9/18/03 SETTING TRIAL FOR
11/19/03 WAS IS ERROR. TRIAL IS RESET FOR
11/12/03 @9:00 AM RM 204
OTHER EVENT 09/24/2003 09/26/2003 09/26/2003
Comments: DEFT'S COPY OF APP TO W/D
RETURNED UNDELIVERABLE
PRE-TRIAL CONFERENCE OVROM ELIZA 09/18/2003 09/19/2003 09/19/2003
Comments: WAS HELD; TRIAL ON 11-19-03
ATDF TAYLOR
OTHER EVENT AMUNDSON LAURA K 08/26/2003 09/02/2003 09/02/2003
Comments: STATEMENT OF HOURS
.4-$18.00
APPEARANCE TAYLOR KAREN 08/25/2003 08/26/2003 08/26/2003
Comments: FILED BY KAREN TAYLOR
WITHDRAWAL OF COUNSEL OVROM ELIZA 08/21/2003 08/22/2003 08/22/2003
Comments: OF ADULT PUBLIC DEF IS GRANTED
KAREN TAYLOR IS APPOINTED
ORDER OF ARRAIGNMENT MCGHEE ODELL 08/21/2003 08/21/2003 08/21/2003
Comments: Pretrial Conference 09/18/2003 01:30 PM DCC1
Trial 10/22/2003 09:00 AM DCC9
Bond is continued
TRIAL INFORMATION OVROM ELIZA 08/20/2003 08/20/2003 08/20/2003
Comments: FILED BY JAMES WARD
ORDER FOR ARRAIGNMENT MCGHEE ODELL 08/14/2003 08/14/2003
08/14/2003
Comments: IN CUSTODY ON 8/21/03 AT 10:30AM JAILCOURT
OUT OF CUSTODY AT 8AM ROOM 204
PRELIM HAS NOT BEEN WAIVED SET FOR 8/22/03
DNU - HEARING FOR BOND REDUCTION MCGHEE ODELL 08/14/2003 08/14/2003
08/14/2003
Comments: BOND $13000 C/S
APP FOR COUNSEL/FINANCIAL STATMENT MCGHEE ODELL 08/13/2003
08/13/2003 08/13/2003
Comments: APPROVED
PD IS APPOINTED
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 08/13/2003 08/13/2003 08/13/2003
Comments: BURGLARY 2ND
ANPD 03-75354
HEARING FOR INITIAL APPEARANCE MCGHEE ODELL 08/13/2003 08/13/2003
08/13/2003
Comments: Preliminary Hearing 08/22/2003 08:00 AM DA03
Bond Review 08/14/2003 08:30 AM DA04
Bond set for 713.5 $13000 C/S
Total Bond $13000 C/S
Indexed PUBLIC DEFENDER-POLK COUNTYPIN-
PK1000375
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
Citation Number:
Orig Paid Due Summary
3501.70 3501.70 0.00 COSTS
0.00 0.00 0.00 FINE
125.00 125.00 0.00 SURCHARGE
0.00 0.00 0.00 RESTITUTION
27.50 27.50 0.00 OTHER
-------------------------------------
$3654.20 $3654.20 $0.00
WILLS, KENT B [ Collected Sept 13, 2009]
Age: 40
Rogers, AR
Ankeny, IA
Marshalltown, IA
Bartlett, IL
Villa Park, IL
And from another source: Hanover Park, IL
WILLS, FREDERICK ALFRED (Kent's Dad 65 )
WILLS, MICHAEL A (Kent's son ??)
WILLS, JANET RAE (Kent's Mom 62 )
HARTWIG,TIFFANY JEANNE (Wills) (Kent's sister )
From another source: Kelly M Wills Kent's wife ?? )
( Samantha T Wills, Kathleen M Wills, James Wills ? )
-----------------------------------
Consider the following:
If "our" Kent is NOT Kent Bradley Wills then
his ""Fake ID"" has worked well, so what's
the problem?
Consider Kent's OWN comments about:
A. regarding his sister (by name)
B. property in CORPORATION name (Wills Family Trust)
C. footage of "Wills" plaque avoiding first name
D. apt building at 202 NW College Ave Ankeny IA
E. past residence in various cities in IA
F. connection to Arkansas
G. that he set up/was assigned this ""Fake ID""
Does an actual Garage Burglary Felon have a
RIGHT to con people into thinking he ISN'T one?
Does a TWO time thieving Felon actually have
a right to conceal his record and a right
against having his record exposed?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.bob-larson/msg/b9653f6758b592b8
Newsgroups: alt.fan.bob-larson, alt.law-enforcement, alt.usenet.kooks
From: Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com>
Local: Wed, Oct 15 2008 5:59 pm
> and running to Arkansas ain't gonna help you this time, Kent --
KBW > I've never run to Arkansas.
KBW > We have a house near Fort Smith, AR.
KBW > I'm confident your stalking has found
KBW > just where it is. You were able to
KBW > find my phone number from when I
KBW > lived in Chicago (you posted part
KBW > of it) back in 1988, so finding a
KBW > current address should have been
KBW > real easy for you.
2006 Assets Learning Conference Session III.8
Understanding the New Bankruptcy and Credit Laws:
Implications for the Field
Facilitated for the Assets Alliance by:
Janet Wills
Wills Resources
8250 Wills Court
Rogers, AR 72756
Phone & Fax Number: (479) 925-4001
E-mail: janetw...@yahoo.com
Ramona McKinney
Asset Builders Program Director
Southern Good Faith Fund
2304 West 29th Avenue
Pine Bluff, Arkansas 71603
Phone Number: (870) 535-6233, ext. 15
E-mail: rmck...@southerngff.org
History of Bankruptcy
Roots of word traced to medieval Italy – “banco rotto” which means
broken bench
Early U. S. bankruptcy law was modification of British law
1800’s – First federal bankruptcy law signed by President John Adams
in 1800 2 more laws passed and repealed until the Bankruptcy Act of
1898
1900’s and Beyond
A bankruptcy environment that had as its focus helping debtors seek a
new start remained in place for most of 20th century.
By beginning of 21st century creditors successfully argued that this
current law and environment were too easy on debtors
BAPCPA
The Bankruptcy Abuse Prevention and Consumer Protection Act of 2005
was passed and went into effect October 19, 2005
Interruption in our presentation
There is a blank page in the back of your packet. As we are talking
today about bankruptcy and credit, please use it to jot down some of
your thoughts on how this new bankruptcy environment is going to
impact you and the people you serve.
Specifically write yourself a note or two about at least one
bankruptcy proceeding you know about personally. Then in 20 words or
less state what you think the contributing cause was for that person’s
financial problems.
We will want to hear your thoughts later.
Types of Bankruptcy
Chapter 7
Chapter 11
Chapter 12
Chapter 13
Chapter 7
For personal bankruptcy
Often referred to is liquidation bankruptcy
Debtors turn over nonessential assets to bankruptcy trustee, who then
sells it off and distributes proceeds to creditors eliminating debt
completely
This type of bankruptcy was most affected by the BAOCPA
Chapter 11
For corporations that want to reorganize their finances and remain in
business
Features a debt repayment plan
Chapter 12
For family farmers and fishermen
Features payment plan and debt restructuring
Chapter 13
For individuals
Features debt repayment plan
More individuals who previously would have filed under Chapter 7 will
be forced into Chapter 13
Changes with the BAPCPA
Means test
Required Credit Counseling
Required Debtor Education
Means Test
To qualify for Chapter 7 “liquidation bankruptcy” individual must pass
means test
Income must be below state’s median income
Or if it is above, debtor is subject to means test
Monthly income less allowed expenses
If after all these subtractions the total monthly disposable income is
less than $100 the debtor has passed the Means Test
Means Test cont.
If disposable income is more than $166.67 Means test is flunked and
debtor is not eligible for Chapter 7, must go to Chapter 13
If disposable income is between $100 and $166.67 then calculations are
figured to see if what is left over is enough to pay off more than 25%
of unsecured debt over 5 years.
In other words – the means test is not easy.
Required Credit Counseling
Debtors filing for Chapter 7 must complete required credit counseling
& debtors must pay for it.* Credit Counseling must be provided by a
qualifying 501(c)3 organization that has been approved by Bankruptcy
Trustees.
*fee can be waived
Debtor Education
2 hours required
Required topics
Budget Development
Setting short-term & long-term financial goals as well as developing
skills to assist in achieving these goals
Calculating gross monthly income & net monthly income
Identifying & classifying monthly expenses as fixed, variable, or
periodic
Debtor Education
Required topics cont
Money Management
Keeping adequate financial records
Developing decision-making skills required to distinguish between
wants and needs and to comparison shop for goods & services
Maintaining appropriate levels of insurance coverage, taking into
account the types and costs of insurance
Saving for emergences, for periodic payments, and for financial goals
Debtor education
required topics cont.
Wise Use of Credit
Types sources, and costs of credit & loans
Identifying debt warning signs
Appropriate use of credit & alternatives to credit use
Checking a credit rating
Debtor Education
required topics cont.
Consumer information
Public and non-profit resources for consumer assistance
Applicable consumer protection laws and regulations, such as those
governing correction of a credit record and protection against
consumer fraud
Approved credit counseling and debtor education can be provided
In person
Internet
Telephone
(can be approved for a combination of internet/telephone. That is the
approval we have)
www.usdoj.gov/ust/
The U. S. Trustees home page
A Huge wealth of information
www.usdoj.gov/ust/eo/bapcpa/ccde/cc_approved.htm#AL
Web site (part of the trustee web site) for list of approved credit
counselors and debtor education providers
Click on state
Click on your judicial district
Bankruptcy and the Future
At first it’s a relief – you file for bankruptcy, the creditors stop
calling and harassing you, and the juggling act ends.
Many people who file bankruptcy ask, “Now what can I expect?”
Let’s begin looking at “what’s next” by completing the quiz.
Bankruptcy will expire from your credit report after 10 years.
Some credit reporting agencies may remove Chapter 13 after 7 years.
Bankruptcy is for life – if you apply for insurance, credit, or a job
you can be asked if you have ever filed for bankruptcy. There is no
time limit even if it is very old.
Bankruptcy will stay with me forever: True.
2. The accounts included in my bankruptcy will be removed from my
credit report upon discharge: False.
Accounts included in bankruptcy expire independently from bankruptcy.
These accounts will be marked “Included in BK” on the credit report.
They will remain up to 7 years after filing.
After discharge the balance must be reported as “0.”
I will never get credit again: False.
You can expect receive many offers of credit.
Many of these may be from unscrupulous creditors with activation fees
and/or membership fees.
There are “debtor-friendly” agencies that specialize in credit repair
loans.
Do not be too eager to get credit again – know the terms and
conditions of the credit.
I will not be able to by a home for 10 years: False.
There are some lenders who prefer to deal with consumers with good
credit and will not do business for the 10 years it remains.
It is not a quick fix, it may take those in Chapter 13 three to five
years to complete their payment plan.
With strides to rebuild credit and no new negative “marks,” you may be
able to receive a conventional mortgage within one to two years.
Even after bankruptcy I may still have some of my existing debt:
True.
Even with Chapter 7 not all debt will be discharged, it depends on the
type of debts that are owed.
Certain debts that cannot be discharged include: most taxes, child
support, most student loans, court fines and criminal restitution, and
personal injury.
Debts incurred after filing for bankruptcy will not be included.
I will lose all my property if I file for bankruptcy: False.
With Chapter 13, which is like a payment plan, you may be allowed to
keep property.
Chapter 7 involves the sale of all assets that are not exempt.
Exemptions differ from state to state but typically allow: equity in
home, insurance, retirement plans, personal property, car, public
benefits, and/or tools used on job.
Filing for bankruptcy will lower my credit score: True.
The drop in the credit score will depend on the type of debt and
payment history prior to filing.
Credit score is calculated using a complicated algorithm that takes
into account hundreds of factors and values.
It is very difficult to predict how the credit score will be affected
but bankruptcy is one of the most negative factors included in the
report.
I cannot file for bankruptcy for 8 years after discharge: True.
This is only true for Chapter 7.
Chapter 13 waiting period is shorter and can be as little as two
years.
After bankruptcy all my debts will be free and clear and I will have
peace of mind: False.
As stated in #5 all debts will not be discharged.
Bankruptcy is listed in the top five life-altering negative events
that one can go through.
Bankruptcy is life-altering and leaves deep wounds both to the psyche
and the credit report.
After bankruptcy I will need to take steps to protect myself from
another bankruptcy: True.
Even if the bankruptcy was through no fault of your own it will be a
good time to examine what led to bankruptcy to begin to prepare for
unforeseen events.
Take a critical look at spending and saving habits.
Implement strategies to control spending, develop a budget, and start
a savings plan.
Let’s Talk About It
Implications to the IDA field
The “typical” person seeking bankruptcy
Contributing causes
krp
> Are you so drunk you think TV and print are the same thing? You must
> be.
Hey IMBECILLE try READING sometime.YOU FUKKKKKING MORON!
>>http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=betamaxcase
>>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417
>>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technology/articles/groksterprimer_033805.htm
>>Now what IDIOTIC comeback can we expect from our resident IDIOT POLACK????
> None. Since I consistently PROVE I'm your intellectual superior,
> nothing I post could be seen as idiotic.
I see you SNIPPED some of the links I provided. In your POLACK
reasoning, you seem to believe that this PROVES some point. Such as your
POLACK claim that it has NO relevance to printed materials. In the finding
of the Supremes you might see it applies to ALL media. Something a STUPID
POLACK can't reason. The FAIR USE DOCTRINE applies to *.*! As do its
exceptions, such as reproducing a work and claiming it as your own, or in
trying to commercially exploit the work, such as selling copies. Other than
that, with proper attribution one can quote part or ALL of an article to
educate or to make a point. The STUPID argument you are TRYING to make,
Polack, is one that IDIOTS on Usenet have tried to make for years and in the
end they all get humiliated. READ up on the issue.
krp
>>SUPREME COURT OVERSEER ATTORNEY KUNT WILLS
> You need to get into rehab, Pangborn. Your alcoholism, the same
> alcoholism you claimed caused you to be found legally insane, is once
> again compelling you to claim something about me that you KNOW is not
> true.
You tend to think of yourself as a GREAT LEGAL EXPERT, Wills. You get more
than a little overbearing on what you *THINK* you know. (But really DON';T!)
> I read often. Unlike you, I'm not drunk, so I am able to focus on
> letters and words.
Your reading is always with almost NO comprehensionand I make allowances
that English is NOT your primary language. You also have a nasty habit of
SELECTIVE reading and the ability to grasp anything wider than your own
nose. Which I grant you is an extreme venue, BUT hardly the point.
>>>>http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=betamaxcase
> People have the right to record programs at home for private use.
> Is that what you believe Greg did when he posted an entire
> article?
Kunt theBetamax case was a case ENTIRELY based on the 'FAIR USE
DOCTRINE." In feel for your Polack LACK of ability to grasp the significance
of that and apply it as broadly as the Supreme Court said it applies. YOU
"overruled" them becaus e in your tiny little POLACK mind the case was about
video recording and NOTHING ELSE. Again you obviously did NOT read the
decision.
> What principle of Fair Use do you believe he was operating under
> when he did that? He is claiming that "fair use" covers copy and
> pasting an entire, complete piece of another's work.
Kunt it is fair use to quote an article either in part or whole if your
purpose is to educate and not do the two forbidden things. a. Claim it as
your own. or b. Make copies to sell.
> Surely you, with your vast experience with law in your practice
> of trail CONsulting and advising suckers, sorry, clients on legal
> matters, would easily recognize the Fair Use principle Greg likely
> thinks exempts him from copyright law. What is it? And how would it
> apply to posting an entire piece of work to a Usenet newsgroup?
> Proving that people can video tape TV shows for private use at
> home doesn't cover what Greg did.
As long as proper attribution was given and it wasn't being done for
profit, the Fair Use Doctrine prvides for it. Somebody the other day pointed
out the copyright notices in newpapers etc. They are very much like the FBI
warnings we see on DVD's. EVERYONE knows (except YOU, Kunt) that those
"warnings" are a joke. So much so that even Hollywood has made fun of them.
There was a sketch in the ultimate spoof movie, "Amazon Women on the Moon"
called "Video pirates." It had a bunch of men dressed as pirates on a ship.
The guy took out a video tape and read the FBI WARNING, and he looked at his
mates and said; "We're SOOOOOOOOO SKKKKARED!"
Kunt there is no problem with long quotes, again so long as you stay
inside the rules. You can't say it's your work and you can't sell it.
>>>>http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=US&vol=464&invol=417
> From the site:
> "The record and the District Court's findings show (1) that there is a
> significant likelihood that substantial numbers of copyright holders
> who license their works for broadcast on free television would not
> object to having their broadcast time-shifted by private viewers (i.
> e., recorded at a time when the VTR owner cannot view the broadcast so
> that it can be watched at a later time); and (2) that there is no
> likelihood that time-shifting would cause nonminimal harm to the
> potential market for, or the value of, respondents' copyrighted works.
> The VTR's are therefore capable of substantial noninfringing uses."
>
> If Greg has video taped the article for his own private home use,
> you might be able to make the drunken argument you present. As it
> stands, you've once again PROVED you know NOTHING about matters of
> law.
Don't look new, Kunt but you just missed the POINT AGAIN. Every day you
PROVE that you ARE a "stupid Polack!"
> This is not meant to imply I'm an expert, although your
> alcoholism will force you to claim I am. I'm simply willing and able
> to research applicable law whereas you whine and cry and have MASSIVE
> on-line tantrums.
Your reading comprehension of conversational Eglish is marginal at best,
Kunt. Your understanding of LEGAL language is near ZERO, even though you
THINK you are a legal whiz. I'd have thought the dismal failure of your
appealate brief in your own case would ahve taught you that understanding
legal issues is NOT your strong suit.
Greegor
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
1. GLEN FROHMAN 43481-061 49-White-M 02-23-2004 RELEASED
Even THIS does not prove WHAT Glen was convicted of.
It does NOT state sentence, only an exit date.
You DO know the difference between
INDICTMENT and CONVICTION, don't you, Kent?
Were you the anonymous idiot who confused them?
Do you have any explanation for Maureen's LINK
which was apparently broken WHEN IT WAS POSTED?
Why would Moe post a very broken link and
claim that it proved Glen was convicted?
Did you think it ever actually worked with an
http prefix buried in the middle of the link
and the word servlet chopped off?
womanGoddess
> On Nov 5, 9:31 pm, womanGoddess <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 5, 4:21 pm, womanGoddess <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Nov 2, 10:03 pm, Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > On Nov 2, 1:17 pm, TOP <T...@invalid.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > Going for plausible deniability again, Hanson?
>
> > > > > Why did you avoid the archives? Searching on google news withOUT going
> > > > > to the year, or withOUT using the archives, returns only recent news. It
> > > > > says so on the google news search page.
>
> > > > > Of course you innocently missed that, right?
>
> > > > > But then you have never failed to use archives before to stalk others.
> > > > > Mistake or lie. You tell us.
>
> > > >http://news.google.com/archivesearch?q=Glen+Frohman+pirated&btnG=Sear...
>
> > > > > Care to explain all your lies about Frohman, or did you just ""not
> > > > > know?"" LOL
>
> > > > > TOP (The Other Pangborn)
>
> > > > The best it shows is an indictment and a partner who turned states
> > > > evidence.
> > > > Why is there no story about CONVICTION?
> > > > You DO know that an indictment is not a conviction, right?
>
> > > >http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=DDNB&p_theme=d...
>
> > > >http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_action=doc&p_docid=0F5...
> X > And the idiot once again posts something
> X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>
> So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
> know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
You seem to be the " dumbass" Greg, which isn't surprising because
you ARe incredibly stupid.
There's a reason why an online newspaper web site has the copyright
notice on their stuff. Maybe you should have done some actual research
on copyright laws before you in your usual stupidity posted
copyrighted material. " Fair use" does not mean the whole article,
numb nuts.
>
> > > Heres a clue, Greg. Compare that with the list of MPAA convictions on
> > > the web site whose addie I posted some weeks ago. If you actually
> > > have some cognitive thought, you can easily figure out which
> > > conviction is his,
>
> > > Moe
> > > Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
> > > " A vampire cop? REALLY?"
> > > "http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
>
> > > Know your scum---http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
>
> > Oh greg, here's where I posted Frohman's convict number:
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/rec.collecting.cards.non-sports/msg/85...
>
> Moe > I even had a link where people can see for themselves in the
> post.
>
> The link is broken and as far as I can tell never did work.
(( rolls eyes)) The google groups link is broken?
Bullshit.
I showed clearly in the post the search at the BOP.gov web site.
Do'n't tell me you are so brain dead that you didn't go directly to
www.bop.gov, went through the inmate locator search, typed in
Frohman's name and missed this:
Or are you still denying he was convicted of anything now?
That is " PROOF of conviction" greg.
Your response?
(( crickets chirping))
>
> http://inmateloc.bop.gov/locatorservlet/gov.bop.inmatelocator.FindInm...
>
> Let's break that down:
>
> http://inmateloc.bop.gov/
>
> Dead. Is it in the internet archive?
Your idiocy is showing. Obviously you can't figure out its a BOP web
site and go from there.
Damn, you are an idiot!!!
And you actually think what you posted about ME would " intimidate
me"?
AMATEUR!!!
>
> What STATE would that be for?
> Why no designation of state or Federal?
BOP is federal, stupid.
>
> Why is there an http in the MIDDLE of that link?
> Why is the word servlet chopped off even
> way back in 2004?
It was an old link. You could have redone it yourself by going to the
BOP web site, but noooooooooo......
>
> http://inmateloc.bop.gov/locatorservlet/gov.bop.inmatelocator.FindInm...
>
> How could this LINK have EVER worked with
> http in the middle and servlet chopped off?
>
> You said people could check for themselves.
I did. The BOP web site and type in his name.
>
> But that's not really true, is it Maureen?
(( Derisive laugh))
Any more stallings greggie?
>
> Moe > So Greg, are you still claiming that he was never convicted?
>
> I never claimed that he wasn't convicted.
> I claimed you stalked him for over 10 years
> and haven't posted online verifiable PROOF
> that he was CONVICTED.
I never " stalked" him, or anyone, for that matter.
DIRECT proof of his conviction is in your face right now.
Any more evasion excuses Greg?
>
> I saw proof he was indicted, and one of your
> anonymous henchmen posted it as if proof
> of indictment was proof of conviction.
>
> Did you refer to 43481-061 in any other posts online?
I didn't need to greg. One post was enough when Frohman was claiming
he never was in prison. I proved he lied about it.
>
> Is that a state or Federal number?
BOP is a federal prison system, dumbass.
(( rolls eyes))
>
> You DO know that an indictment is NOT a conviction, right, Moe?
So how come he was IN a federal prison Greg? For a vacation?
Now watch greg evade and ignore.
womanGoddess
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:2heaf5lpa04mekmmk...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> > On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:17:04 -0800 (PST), Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > [Snips for brevity]
>
> >>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy
> >>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's Troy
> >>> > > residence on June 20.
> >>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>
> >>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>
> >>X > And the idiot once again posts something
> >>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>
> >>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
> >>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>
> > Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously.
> > Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not
> > allow for the copying of the entire work.
>
> Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous "Betamax"
> case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
This is about an online newspaper and their use of copyright on what
they actually own, not a technology, Kennie. That was a patent
copyright claim, not a publisher ownership claim.
Do try to stick to the actual subject at hand rather than changing it
to try to save your butt monkey's ass.
womanGoddess
> "Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:01fbf5prsbapqoddr...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> >>>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy
> >>>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's
> >>>>> > > Troy
> >>>>> > > residence on June 20.
> >>>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>
> >>>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>
> >>>>X > And the idiot once again posts something
> >>>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>
> >>>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
> >>>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>
> >>> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously.
> >>> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not
> >>> allow for the copying of the entire work.
>
> >>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous
> >>"Betamax"
> >>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
>
> > Cite?
>
> You can't be THAT stupid. Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
>
> http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/
>
>
> READ you illiterate ASSHOLE;
>
> "Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of
> individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of time-shifting
> does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use."
>
> http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=betamaxcase
>
>
> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technology/articles/groksterprim...
>
> Now what IDIOTIC comeback can we expect from our resident IDIOT POLACK????
The issue was Greg's violation of an online copyrighted story.
Different matter Kennie, and you damn well know it.
Unlike Greg, you are just smart enough to figure out Greg might be
in some legal trouble over this repeated copyright violation if he was
reported to the proper copyright owners about it.
((VBEG))
womanGoddess
> On Sat, 7 Nov 2009 12:38:12 -0800 (PST), Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >X > And the idiot once again posts something
> >X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>
> >G > So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
> >G > know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>
> >KBW > Fair use allows you to copy portions for
> >KBW > discussion. It does not allow for the
> >KBW > copying of the entire work.
>
> >KBW > I've explained this to you in the past.
>
> >Got a LINK to where you ""explained"" this in the past?
>
> a Nazi and me on a pony, or admit you've lied about the existence of
> both all along, I'll post numerous links.
> FYI: Double quotation marks (quadruple if you use British
> grammar) still means nothing. I even asked an English as a Second
> Language teacher, just as you suggested. Double quotation marks mean
> nothing at all.
>
>
>
> >KBW > I even cited where in copyright law you
> >KBW > will find this.
>
> >All the better for you to LINK to same!
>
> Nazi and me on a pony, or admit you've lied about the existence of
> both all along, I'll post numerous links.
> As you are well aware, this has been the requirement for a long
> time. Once again you try to present that you don't know this.
> If your NEED to continue to prove you're admitted use and abuse
> of illegal drugs makes honesty IMPOSSIBLE for you, except by accident
> or force, please do so. Your dishonest presentation that you don't
> know the requirement has done me no harm to date. There's no reason
> to expect it will in the future.
>
>
>
> >KBW > Yes, you think you're exempt from all
> >KBW > criminal and civil law. Your record, in
> >KBW > addition to your current actions, proves this.
>
> >See further below regarding your record.
>
> me. You claimed it was about the other Kent Wills, though you've yet
> to state which of the many people in the world with the name Kent
> Wills it's supposed to be.
> Whereas you've made it clear the information isn't about me
> (unless you lied when you claimed it isn't), I have to wonder just why
> you are still compelled to present it as if it is.
>
>
>
> >Kent, Please tell me what you THINK you know about
> >the FAIR USE exception to copyright law.
>
> >Please describe what the background and
> >INTENTION of the FAIR USE exception is.
>
> and citing.
> You already know this, since I went into detail in the past.
> What is the SPECIFIC reason you're acting like you don't already
> know it?
>
>
>
> >Is this going to be another game where you
> >make strong claims and then when proven
> >wrong you blame the statements onto OTHERS?
>
>
>
>
> >Like when you claimed Kim is a male?
>
> DNA test on him, so it's possible he's really a she.
> Are you claiming he's not? If so, please offer the evidence you
> have that lead to such a conclusion.
> To save you some time, I know a man named Ashley as well. Again,
> I've not had a DNA test done, but his full beard leads me to accept
> he's male.
>
>
>
> >Please make it clear what parts you personally
> >BELIEVE and what parts you think you
> >can weasel out of and blame onto other
> >people you are parroting.
>
>
>
>
> >I am still fairly amused that some anonymous
> >schmuck thought he had PROVED Glen
> >had been convicted using only proof that
> >Glen had been INDICTED.
>
> of the truth that you MUST divert attention away from it? Or are you
> once again offering undeniable PROOF that you're obsessed with a man
> you've never met on-line or in real life?
Actually when Frohman was indicted and convicted of was two counts
of conspiracy to commit video piracy.
If Greg wants to obsess about Frohman, I say to him go ahead. It'd be
one more of his handful of cyberstalking targets he seems to waste so
much time on. ((Shrugs)) I had personal reasons to be in Frohman's
case, reasons I mentioned numerous times in old posts about the
subject, and when he was finally arrested, I pretty much closed his
file. After Greg tried getting on my case with his usual cowardly
references to the EBay thief, including his usual bad spelling of a
name, I went back and did some basic updating out of curiosity and
found where Frohman claimed his precious cardboard boxed were stolen,
among other things. :-D
>
>
>
> >You DO know that indictment is NOT conviction, right?
>
> Have I ever claimed it is?
Only Greg claims that.
In order have an indictment, there must be proof of criminal activity
presented.
Is Greg now claiming that Frohman WASN'T pirating tapes and selling
them illegally?
>
>
>
> >Do you think Moe does, and her idiot anonymous ""helper""?
>
> As I asked in another thread, has she ever claimed, directly or
> through implication, that she does?
> I note you RAN from my question. You do that a lot when you're
> proved to be the liar you are.
Or when he can't continue with that red herring.
By now Greg reeks of dead fish.
>
> >Can you find any more on 43481-061 or Glen Frohman?
>
> Yes, if motivated to do so.
(( rolls eyes)) As a BOP number pretty much anyone can use it to
actually find the details of his conviction, where he was incarcerated
and so forth.
Except for mentally deficient people like Greg Hanson, OC.
>
> >Was that YOU who posted the anonymous idiocy, Kent?
>
> No.
>
> >You seem to exhibit some subtle sort of ownership
> >of the hollow argument on Copyright v FAIR USE.
>
> Your use and abuse of illegal drugs may cause you to see claims
> of ownership where none exist, but that's your issue to address.
>
> [snip of Greg's admitting I'm correct]
>
> It's accepted that when I'm correct and you can no longer lie
> your way out of it, you post that which you KNOW isn't about me.
> You've already admitted, freely, that the information you post
> isn't about me but some other person who is named Kent Wills. Are you
> so stoned that you think anyone is buying it now?
>
> 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 Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, or proving he's so
> stupid he thinks I'm Asian.
> MID:<c6bac3f6-7a0e-4bf8-8ddd-d77bccfc6...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/395db830731df54ahttp://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 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."
> -- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
> Message-ID: <35120b16.0401111639.6825f...@posting.google.com>
>
> " ... 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 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>
> 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
womanGoddess
> SUPREME COURT OVERSEER ATTORNEY KUNT WILLS - GARAGE BURGLAR"Kent Wills" <compu...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:oa0cf51g0bf4lg8j0...@4ax.com...
>
>
>
> >>>>>>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video
> >>>>>>> > > piracy
> >>>>>>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's
> >>>>>>> > > Troy
> >>>>>>> > > residence on June 20.
> >>>>>>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>
> >>>>>>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>
> >>>>>>X > And the idiot once again posts something
> >>>>>>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>
> >>>>>>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
> >>>>>>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>
> >>>>> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously.
> >>>>> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not
> >>>>> allow for the copying of the entire work.
>
> >>>>Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous
> >>>>"Betamax"
> >>>>case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
>
> >>> Cite?
>
> >>You can't be THAT stupid. Oh wait. YES YOU CAN!!!!
>
> >>http://w2.eff.org/legal/cases/betamax/
>
>
> >>READ you illiterate ASSHOLE;
> >>"Supreme Court of the United States which ruled that the making of
> >>individual copies of complete television shows for purposes of
> >>time-shifting
> >>does not constitute copyright infringement, but is fair use."
> > Are you so drunk you think TV and print are the same thing? You must
> > be.
>
> Hey IMBECILLE try READING sometime.YOU FUKKKKKING MORON!
>
> >>http://www.museum.tv/eotvsection.php?entrycode=betamaxcase
> >>http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/technology/articles/groksterprim...
> >>Now what IDIOTIC comeback can we expect from our resident IDIOT POLACK????
> > None. Since I consistently PROVE I'm your intellectual superior,
> > nothing I post could be seen as idiotic.
>
> I see you SNIPPED some of the links I provided. In your POLACK
> reasoning, you seem to believe that this PROVES some point. Such as your
> POLACK claim that it has NO relevance to printed materials. In the finding
> of the Supremes you might see it applies to ALL media. Something a STUPID
> POLACK can't reason. The FAIR USE DOCTRINE applies to *.*! As do its
> exceptions, such as reproducing a work and claiming it as your own, or in
> trying to commercially exploit the work, such as selling copies. Other than
> that, with proper attribution one can quote part or ALL of an article to
> educate or to make a point. The STUPID argument you are TRYING to make,
> Polack, is one that IDIOTS on Usenet have tried to make for years and in the
> end they all get humiliated. READ up on the issue.
Tell that to Michael Savage and how his lawsiut against CAIR fared out
Kennie.
womanGoddess
>
> 1. GLEN FROHMAN 43481-061 49-White-M 02-23-2004 RELEASED
>
> Even THIS does not prove WHAT Glen was convicted of.
> It does NOT state sentence, only an exit date.
Are you still denying he was convicted greg?
Seems to me I showed you WRONG. Instead of being a mature adult and
admit you were in error, you try this pathetic red herring attempt.
(( rolls eyes))
Done thrashing in your tar pit yet Greg?
>
> You DO know the difference between
> INDICTMENT and CONVICTION, don't you, Kent?
How can one be convicted without and indictment Greg? BTW the news
articles showed Frohman was indicted.
You really shouldn't paint yourself in corners Greg. Makes you look
really, really stupid.
>
> Were you the anonymous idiot who confused them?
Confused who?
>
> Do you have any explanation for Maureen's LINK
> which was apparently broken WHEN IT WAS POSTED?
It was an old link. There was enough clues in the old post for you to
go to the BOP web site yourself and do a search even a fourth grader
could do.
For some reason you seem incapable of doing simple cognitive tasks
like that.
>
> Why would Moe post a very broken link and
> claim that it proved Glen was convicted?
Since I now showed a link that works, what's your excuse now?
Do enlighten us how someone who served time IN prison was not
convicted or indicted.
>
> Did you think it ever actually worked with an
> http prefix buried in the middle of the link
> and the word servlet chopped off?
Did you even think of doing the BOP web site search yourself?
Man you are STUPID!!!!
But then we know that already.
womanGoddess
> Frohman's name and missed this:
>
Um Greggie is this YOU?
My my, Did YOU serve some federal prison time?
Since you like to claim that anyone who shares the same name as your
stalking target IS that person, I thought your own standards of "
proof" would be used on you.
krp
"womanGoddess" <fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6d48e14d-92ea-4313...@d10g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy
> >>> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's
> >>> > > Troy
> >>> > > residence on June 20.
> >>> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>
> >>> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>
> >>X > And the idiot once again posts something
> >>X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>
> >>So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
> >>know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>
> > Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously.
> > Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not
> > allow for the copying of the entire work.
>
> Yeah that's the argument the MPAA used against Sony in the famous
> "Betamax"
> case. THEY LOST! Sony WON!
MAUREEN MCALLISTER> This is about an online newspaper and their use of
copyright on what
MAUREEN MCALLISTER> they actually own, not a technology, Kennie. That was a
patent
MAUREEN MCALLISTER> copyright claim, not a publisher ownership claim.
They still own it, Maureen. BUT the "Fair Use Doctrine" allows for the
articles to be quoted in part or in whole so long as proper attribution is
given and you are not selling the materials as your own. Maybe if you
weren't such an ignorant feminazi bith, you could understand what the
Supreme Court actually said in the case. I know that because SONY makes
electronic ger the issue throws you. Forget that the court mentioned PRINT
MEDIA in its long recitation. It sails right over the point on your little
heasd. WHOOOOSH!
krp
MAUREEN MCALLISTER> Are you still denying he was convicted greg?
Well it certainly indicates he was convicted of SOMETHING. Could be
anything from terrorism to chewing gum in class.
womanGoddess
> "womanGoddess" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Again the SONY case is not the same issue as what Greg did. Greg
copied the WHOLE article and posted it without the consent of the
copyright owner.
Are you now claiming to be a legal expert on copyright law Kennie?
Do elucidate how you are such a LEGAL EXPERT on the matter that you
can say definitely that your shill, your patsy Greg Hanson can not
possibly be in trouble for posting a copyrighted article in its
entirety without the consent of the copyright owner.
The Sony Betamax case deals with personal use copying of on air
material. it does NOT cover anyone who makes copies of that taped copy
and sells them, as Frohman and so many others found out.
womanGoddess
> "womanGoddess" <fvrn...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
And yet you seem to ignore your patsy Greg's own little post that
says what he was CHARGED WITH.
You have a remarkable ability to ignore the facts, particularly
when it is to your advantage to ignore the facts.
Or are you in fact as stupid as Greg is, so stupid that you need all
the dots connected and presented to you on the spot?
One does not serve federal prison time for chewing gum in class.
BTW how can you explain how Greg Hanson's name came up in the BOP
inmate search database?
Deadrat
news:4af74031$0$4944$9a6e...@unlimited.newshosting.com:
Neither attribution nor selling something as your own is a factor.
Remember the acronym PANE:
(P)urpose of use
(A)mount of use
(N)ature of the work used
(E)ffect on the market for the work.
It's fairly easy to tell when something is definitely fair use. For
example, if a teacher copies a paragraph of a book for her students, then
that's fair use. The purpose is educational, the amount used is small in
comparison to the whole, the work is a book (which is easily excerpted in
part), and the effect on the commercial potential of the book is
negligible.
The more that gets copies, the harder it is to tell definitely whether
the copying is fair use. Copying something in whole will almost always
be problematical unless you can find another exception (back-ups,
personal use off-the-air video, etc.)
<snip/>
Greegor
G > 1. GLEN FROHMAN 43481-061 49-White-M 02-23-2004 RELEASED
G >
G > Even THIS does not prove WHAT Glen was convicted of.
G > It does NOT state sentence, only an exit date.
Moe > Are you still denying he was convicted greg?
Got a LINK to where I said he wasn't convicted?
I just posted a WORKING link proving he was incarcerated.
But it doesn't say WHAT he was convicted of.
I note that you apparently NEVER posted proof that he was.
Your anonymous flunky tried to pass off proof of
an INDICTMENT as proof of conviction!
Moe > Seems to me I showed you WRONG.
It might seem that way to a moron like you.
Please post a LINK to where I stated that Glen was not convicted.
YOU on the other hand, stalked and harassed the
guy without even proving that he really was convicted.
Not that his conviction justifies your stalking either!
Moe > Instead of being a mature adult and
Moe > admit you were in error, you try this
Moe > pathetic red herring attempt.
Moe >
Moe > (( rolls eyes))
Moe >
Moe > Done thrashing in your tar pit yet Greg?
G > You DO know the difference between
G > INDICTMENT and CONVICTION, don't you, Kent?
Moe > How can one be convicted without and
Moe > indictment Greg? BTW the news
Moe > articles showed Frohman was indicted.
Indictment is more like being CHARGED
than being convicted.
You could be indicted and never convicted.
Moe > You really shouldn't paint yourself
Moe > in corners Greg. Makes you look
Moe > really, really stupid.
Your anonymous stooge tried to pass off proof
of indictment as proof of conviction.
G > Were you the anonymous idiot who confused them?
Moe > Confused who?
Indictment confused with conviction.
G > Do you have any explanation for
G > Maureen's LINK which was apparently
G > broken WHEN IT WAS POSTED?
Moe > It was an old link.
Apparently not working even when you posted it!
Moe > There was enough clues in the old post
Moe > for you to go to the BOP web site yourself
Moe > and do a search even a fourth grader
Moe > could do.
Moe > For some reason you seem incapable
Moe > of doing simple cognitive tasks like that.
Which is why YOU didn't post a working link.
And you still haven't posted a link that
describes WHAT he was convicted for,
or for how long.
G > Why would Moe post a very broken link and
G > claim that it proved Glen was convicted?
Moe > Since I now showed a link that works,
Moe > what's your excuse now?
You didn't provide a working link.
My question is WHY not?
Moe > Do enlighten us how someone who served
Moe > time IN prison was not convicted or indicted.
G > Did you think it ever actually worked with an
G > http prefix buried in the middle of the link
G > and the word servlet chopped off?
Moe > Did you even think of doing the BOP web site search yourself?
You didn't answer the damned question!
WHY didn't YOU post a working link to the info?
You stalked and haarassed the poor cuss for
over TEN YEARS and YOU brought him up
because you are still obsessed, so WHY
didn't you post a working BOP link before?
It's a bit like the Bobbi thing.
Just how many people named Bobbi did you stalk and harass?
Moe > Man you are STUPID!!!!
Moe > But then we know that already.
I like that you think that.
PS - Got any more details on Glen Frohman,
like the court records?
Should I post a SCAN of such records or
will you post a LINK to same?
Dan Sullivan
> On Sun, 08 Nov 2009 17:32:17 -0600, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> > will believe the questions haven't
> >been asked if he keeps asking them.
>
> Good grief! I have got to cease proofreading my own posts. :)
>
> That should have been, "...will believe the questions haven't
> been answered if he keeps asking them."
>
> I apologize for any confusion my poor proofreading skills may
> have caused.
>
> --
> "Kent"
Please don't cross posts any messages to alt.support.child-protective-
services that don't have anything to do with child abuse.
Greegor
Are you trying to make the point that you might have the wrong Glen
Frohman?
There are several listed in the USA.
krp
"Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:vdlef59scnvihjuhm...@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:22:07 -0800 (PST), womanGoddess
> <fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> They still own it, Maureen. BUT the "Fair Use Doctrine" allows for the
>>> articles to be quoted in part or in whole so long as proper attribution
>>> is
>>> given and you are not selling the materials as your own. Maybe if you
>>> weren't such an ignorant feminazi bith, you could understand what the
>>> Supreme Court actually said in the case. I know that because SONY makes
>>> electronic ger the issue throws you. Forget that the court mentioned
>>> MEDIA in its long recitation. It sails right over the point on your
>>> little
>>> heasd. WHOOOOSH!
>>
>> Again the SONY case is not the same issue as what Greg did. Greg
>>copied the WHOLE article and posted it without the consent of the
>>copyright owner.
>>
>> Are you now claiming to be a legal expert on copyright law Kennie?
>
>
>>
>> Do elucidate how you are such a LEGAL EXPERT on the matter that you
>>can say definitely that your shill, your patsy Greg Hanson can not
>>possibly be in trouble for posting a copyrighted article in its
>>entirety without the consent of the copyright owner.
>>
>> The Sony Betamax case deals with personal use copying of on air
>>material. it does NOT cover anyone who makes copies of that taped copy
>>and sells them, as Frohman and so many others found out.
>
> current copyright law is bound by case law from the early 80's.
Kunt - case law does NOT have an expiration date. It only changes when the
COURT (and not some Usenet WHACK JOB named Kent Wills says so) changes its
ruling in a new case. Otherwise it STANDS, doesn't it ATTORNEY WILLS?
Greegor
KBW > current copyright law is bound by
KBW > case law from the early 80's.
KRP > Kunt - case law does NOT have an expiration
KRP > date. It only changes when the COURT (and
KRP > not some Usenet WHACK JOB named Kent
KRP > Wills says so) changes its ruling in a new
KRP > case. Otherwise it STANDS, doesn't it
KRP > ATTORNEY WILLS?
Kent, Do you really think that FAIR USE caselaw
from the 1980's has been thrown out somehow?
Kent, I think you've been watching too much
fantasy on TV but I eagerly await your dissertation
on the revision of FAIR USE law since the 1980's.
krp
"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:975eb2df-d999-404d...@j19g2000yqk.googlegroups.com...
> KBW > Of course, Pangborn LIES and claims
> KBW > current copyright law is bound by
> KBW > case law from the early 80's.
>
> KRP > Kunt - case law does NOT have an expiration
> KRP > date. It only changes when the COURT (and
> KRP > not some Usenet WHACK JOB named Kent
> KRP > Wills says so) changes its ruling in a new
> KRP > case. Otherwise it STANDS, doesn't it
> KRP > ATTORNEY WILLS?
>
> Kent, Do you really think that FAIR USE caselaw
> from the 1980's has been thrown out somehow?
No, Greg. The goofy POLACK thinks they "EXPIRED." He actually believes
that Supreme Court Decisions are good ON THAT DAY ONLY! And he wonders why I
call *HIM* a stupid Polack. Let me disclaim AGAIN that I do NOT refer to
other Polish people as "stupid Polacks" JUST HIM! It is an apt description
of the IDIOT. He bellows and boasts that Supreme Court decisions from 20
years ago no longer apply, that's in his vast JAILHOUSE LAWYER expertise. He
hold himself out as having such great legal knowledge. GOOFY there, has NO
idea what Shepherd's Digest is or what the hell it is for. He thinks' it is
a math book or list of astrological information on planetary movement.
Although Wills has a BIG MOUTH on legal issues, he constantly makes a fool
of himself.
NOTE TO KENT WILLS: U.S. Supreme Court decisions do NOT expire (unless the
decision, mandates limited application; see Bush v. Gore) they STAND as the
LAW of the land unless the Court and Not some BLOWHARD on Usenet named KUNT
WILLS changes them. There is NO expiration date on decisions Kunt. Not
outside the limited parameters I just mentioned. There are 200 year old
decisions that STAND you fukkkkking IDIOT!
Greegor
KBW > current copyright law is bound by
KBW > case law from the early 80's.
KRP > Kunt - case law does NOT have an expiration
KRP > date. It only changes when the COURT (and
KRP > not some Usenet WHACK JOB named Kent
KRP > Wills says so) changes its ruling in a new
KRP > case. Otherwise it STANDS, doesn't it
KRP > ATTORNEY WILLS?
G > Kent, Do you really think that FAIR USE caselaw
G > from the 1980's has been thrown out somehow?
KRP > No, Greg. The goofy POLACK thinks they
KRP > "EXPIRED." He actually believes that
KRP > Supreme Court Decisions are good ON
KRP > THAT DAY ONLY! And he wonders why I
KRP > call *HIM* a stupid Polack. Let me
KRP > disclaim AGAIN that I do NOT refer to
KRP > other Polish people as "stupid Polacks"
KRP > JUST HIM! It is an apt description of the
KRP > IDIOT. He bellows and boasts that
KRP > Supreme Court decisions from 20 years
KRP > ago no longer apply, that's in his vast
KRP > JAILHOUSE LAWYER expertise. He
KRP > hold himself out as having such great legal
KRP > knowledge. GOOFY there, has NO idea
KRP > what Shepherd's Digest is or what the
KRP > hell it is for. He thinks' it is a math book
KRP > or list of astrological information on
KRP > planetary movement. Although Wills has
KRP > a BIG MOUTH on legal issues, he
KRP > constantly makes a fool of himself.
KRP >
KRP > NOTE TO KENT WILLS: U.S. Supreme
KRP > Court decisions do NOT expire (unless the
KRP > decision, mandates limited application;
KRP > see Bush v. Gore) they STAND as the
KRP > LAW of the land unless the Court and Not
KRP > some BLOWHARD on Usenet named KUNT
KRP > WILLS changes them. There is NO
KRP > expiration date on decisions Kunt. Not
KRP > outside the limited parameters I just
KRP > mentioned. There are 200 year old
KRP > decisions that STAND you fukkkkking IDIOT!
Kent posted in other threads but didn't answer my question.
G > Kent, Do you really think that FAIR USE caselaw
G > from the 1980's has been thrown out somehow?
I eagerly await your dissertation, Kent! LOL
womanGoddess
Oh really? How many have you found in your stalking Greg?
Greegor
G > Are you trying to make the point that you
G > might have the wrong Glen Frohman?
G >
G > There are several listed in the USA.
Moe > Oh really? How many have you found in your stalking Greg?
Moe, You stalked and harassed Glen Frohman
for over a DECADE online.
All I did was look in a phone book and
mention how many people by that name
there are and you accuse me of stalking?
womanGoddess
Why would to take the time to look in a " phone book" Greg, if this
was a minor thing to you?
No you know as well as I do what you ACTUALLY did. You did your
shitty " People Finder" search. You would have known that unlike my
name, there are not many people with the name Glen Frohman around. You
would have found the "Relic Hunter" reference through Google and you
would have found only references to ONE Glen Frohman in your web
searches.
Feel free to show me proof of your claims of > many people " with
that name.
As for stalking, you should talk Greg. How many times have you done
the big files copy and paste to usenet in your posts about Sullivan,
Moore and Wills? You've done that over and over, clogging the usenet
with the wasted bandwidth that you could have simply shown the URL to
ONE post you made.
You claimed I stalked Frohman. I never did.
You claimed I stalked someone named Bobbi, but when challenged to
show details and proof, you change the subject.
You claim I stalked more than those two people ( one vague) that you
mentioned, yet you have yet list their names and show the proof.
Your attempts to intimidate me aren't working Greg. Frankly I'm not
even impressed by what little you think you have on me. Seeing as in
your inept cyberstalking of me you missed a helluva lot of what I
actually have online.
So Greg, what WERE you in the BOP FOR anyway?
My guess is child porn.
krp
> On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:36:18 -0800 (PST), Greegor
> <gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>KRP > NOTE TO KENT WILLS: =A0U.S. Supreme
>>KRP > Court decisions do NOT expire (unless the
>>KRP > decision, mandates limited application;
>>KRP > see Bush v. Gore) they STAND as the
>>KRP > LAW of the land unless the Court and Not
>>KRP > some BLOWHARD on Usenet named KUNT
>>KRP > WILLS changes them. There is NO
>>KRP > expiration date on decisions Kunt. Not
>>KRP > outside the limited parameters I just
>>KRP > mentioned. There are 200 year old
>>KRP > decisions that STAND you fukkkkking IDIOT!
>>
>>Kent posted in other threads but didn't answer my question.
>
>
>>
>>G > Kent, Do you really think that FAIR USE caselaw
>>G > from the 1980's has been thrown out somehow?
>>
>>I eagerly await your dissertation, Kent! LOL
>
> haven't? Be specific.
Yes you CLAIMED that MANY new laws were enacted that changed the fair
use doctrine. The FUNNY part is that when I asked you to NAME THEM you
dropped your pants started pissing all over the floor and ran away
screaming. AGAIN! So KUNT - give us the specifics of the change to the
Federal Code YOU CLAIM changed the definition of Fair Use and OVERRULED the
U.S. Supreme Court. I know that we won't see it in this lifetime.
Greegor
You mean you posted a photo of an underage boy with you?
womanGoddess
> Moe > My guess is child porn.
>
> You mean you posted a photo of an underage boy with you?
Never did post a photo of me Greg.
Besides, you do know the difference between a MAN ans a son, don't
you?
Or have you forgotten that women can bear children?
Greegor
G > You mean you posted a photo of an underage boy with you?
Moe > Never did post a photo of me Greg.
Moe >
Moe > Besides, you do know the difference
Moe > between a MAN ans a son, don't you?
Moe > Or have you forgotten that women can bear children?
Did you bear a child, Moe?
Ewe!
krp
>>>>KRP > NOTE TO KENT WILLS: =A0U.S. Supreme
>>>>KRP > Court decisions do NOT expire (unless the
>>>>KRP > decision, mandates limited application;
>>>>KRP > see Bush v. Gore) they STAND as the
>>>>KRP > LAW of the land unless the Court and Not
>>>>KRP > some BLOWHARD on Usenet named KUNT
>>>>KRP > WILLS changes them. There is NO
>>>>KRP > expiration date on decisions Kunt. Not
>>>>KRP > outside the limited parameters I just
>>>>KRP > mentioned. There are 200 year old
>>>>KRP > decisions that STAND you fukkkkking IDIOT!
>>>>
>>>>Kent posted in other threads but didn't answer my question.
>>>
>>> Why do you lie?
>>>
>>>>
>>>>G > Kent, Do you really think that FAIR USE caselaw
>>>>G > from the 1980's has been thrown out somehow?
>>>>
>>>>I eagerly await your dissertation, Kent! LOL
>>>
>>> I've already responded. Why are you LYING and presenting that I
>>> haven't? Be specific.
>>
>> Yes you CLAIMED that MANY new laws were enacted that changed the fair
>>use doctrine.
>
> That's not the claim I made.
Sure yolu did. That's the EXCUSE you gave for saying that the fair use
doctine and the Supreme Court's decision is NO LONGER VALID! What's the
matter Polack, can't find the LAWS yopu say changed???
>>The FUNNY part is that when I asked you to NAME THEM you
>>dropped your pants started pissing all over the floor and ran away
>>screaming.
> You've never asked. I linked to current copyright law without
> anyone asking.
Yes I have. Several times and I am askign again.
>>AGAIN! So KUNT - give us the specifics of the change to the
>>Federal Code YOU CLAIM changed the definition of Fair Use and OVERRULED
>>the
>>U.S. Supreme Court. I know that we won't see it in this lifetime.
> I've already done so. You whined about it. Once again, you've
> lost.
Tell me dipshit - HOW do you manage to make posts in disappearing ink?
NOBODY has seen your PROOF of such laws. Like the retarded POLACK you are,
you think this BULLSHIT of yours (I already posted it 54 times) is going to
work?? And you WONDER why I refer to you as a "STUPID POLACK!"
womanGoddess
I'm a female. Interesting thing about human females. We can bear
children.
>
> Ewe!
Ewes are female sheep. As I never owned one-- so far-- I see your
reference has no correlation to the subject at hand.
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
Moe
Greegor
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/98c8d85b37b318de
Moe > Besides, you do know the difference
Moe > between a MAN and a son, don't you?
Moe > Or have you forgotten that women can bear children?
You DO realize that after all of your denials, this
is a tacit admission that it's you in the photo, right?
ah
>> On Sun, 8 Nov 2009 14:22:07 -0800 (PST), womanGoddess
>> <fvr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>> They still own it, Maureen. BUT the "Fair Use Doctrine" allows for the
>>>> articles to be quoted in part or in whole so long as proper attribution
>>>> is
>>>> given and you are not selling the materials as your own. Maybe if you
>>>> weren't such an ignorant feminazi bith, you could understand what the
>>>> Supreme Court actually said in the case. I know that because SONY makes
>>>> electronic ger the issue throws you. Forget that the court mentioned
>>>> MEDIA in its long recitation. It sails right over the point on your
>>>> little
>>>> heasd. WHOOOOSH!
>>>
>>> Again the SONY case is not the same issue as what Greg did. Greg
>>>copied the WHOLE article and posted it without the consent of the
>>>copyright owner.
>>>
>>> Are you now claiming to be a legal expert on copyright law Kennie?
>>
>> By Pangborn's own standards, he must.
>>
>>>
>>> Do elucidate how you are such a LEGAL EXPERT on the matter that you
>>>can say definitely that your shill, your patsy Greg Hanson can not
>>>possibly be in trouble for posting a copyrighted article in its
>>>entirety without the consent of the copyright owner.
>>>
>>> The Sony Betamax case deals with personal use copying of on air
>>>material. it does NOT cover anyone who makes copies of that taped copy
>>>and sells them, as Frohman and so many others found out.
>>
>> I already proved that. Of course, Pangborn LIES and claims
>> current copyright law is bound by case law from the early 80's.
>
>
> Kunt - case law does NOT have an expiration date. It only changes when the
> COURT (and not some Usenet WHACK JOB named Kent Wills says so) changes its
> ruling in a new case. Otherwise it STANDS, doesn't it ATTORNEY WILLS?
>
>
ooooh, BITCH!
--
a 'http://soma.fm/' h
Greegor
Dan Sullivan
You eat cats on Thanksgiving, grag?
Greegor
of the FAIR USE exception to copyright law.
I want to see it.
Greegor
and Nov 30 that I posted the link you reposted?
It's STILL not definitive, but the indictment makes
it reasonable to believe the incarceration was
a result of copyright violation or something related to it.
Somebody named TOP posted a link
to a story about indictment, and made
stupid hostile comments as if that proves
conviction, which of course it does NOT.
Indictment and conviction are NOT the same thing.
Moe ran a friggin' CAMPAIGN of stalking and
harassment of the poor bastard for a DECADE,
yet somehow did NOT post actual PROOF!
It's STILL not definitive of that being what
he was convicted for, just a reasonable conclusion.
http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&FirstName=glen&LastName=frohman
GLEN FROHMAN 43481-061 49-White-M 02-23-2004 RELEASED
Greegor
G > and Nov 30 that I posted the link you reposted?
G >
G > It's STILL not definitive, but the indictment makes
G > it reasonable to believe the incarceration was
G > a result of copyright violation or something related to it.
KBW > Are you so stoned you think people go to
KBW > federal prison for a civil crime? Really?
KBW > He went due to committing fraud, stupid.
Got proof?
The original claim was that he was convicted of
the crime of copyright violation.
Now you're claiming he was imprisoned for FRAUD.
[ Link to news story does not work, ]
CHARGES SAY MAN PIRATED VIDEOS
Illegally taped concerts sold
BYLINE: Wes Hills Dayton Daily News
DATE: August 8, 2002
PUBLICATION: Dayton Daily News (OH)
EDITION: CITY
SECTION: LOCAL
PAGE: B1
DAYTON - A Troy man was indicted Wednesday on charges he conspired to
sell on the Internet pirated videos of the Dave Matthews Band, Bruce
Springsteen and other performers.
Glen Frohman of 513 W. Market St. also was charged with selling
unauthorized videos on Oct. 5, 2001. Frohman faces 10 years in
federal
prison if convicted on both charges.
The indictment claims Frohman, "on numerous occasions, would either
alone or with the assistance of other individuals, tape performances
of musical entertainers without the consent of said entertainers and
offer these videotapes for sale on the Internet through a Web site.
"Customers were instructed to send payment in the form of a check or
money order" to a post office box in Troy controlled by Frohman, the
indictment claims.
The "overt acts" in the conspiracy allege Frohman:
* Sent through the U.S. mail Oct. 5 a videotape of a live musical
performance of the Dave Matthews Band.
* Sent on Dec. 11 a videotape of a live musical performance of Bruce
Springsteen.
In a sworn statement, Postal Inspector M.E. Arthur details how the
case developed:
Arthur states that he was contacted Aug. 15 by the agent for musician
Eric Johnson regarding Frohman advertising a Web site offering to
sell
concert videos from numerous musicians.
On Sept. 25, Arthur states, he used an undercover name to place an
order through the Web site for the Dave Matthews Band's Tabernacle
and
Austin City Limits .
Arthur states that after he received the videos for $39, Wendy
Yascur,
coordinator of evidence control and anti-piracy special projects for
the Recording Industry Association of America, was contacted.
Yascur sent the videotapes to Coran Capshaw, manager for the Dave
Matthews Band, who provided a sworn statement stating the band had
"never licensed, consented to or otherwise authorized neither Glen
Frohman . . . to manufacture, distribute or offer to sell the videos
of the live musical performances."
On Dec. 11, Arthur states, he ordered five more videos - live musical
performances of Tori Amos, Bruce Springsteen, Eric Clapton, Prince
and
Phish - and received them after sending $153.
Again, Yascur forwarded the tapes to the musicians' management
companies to confirm they had been pirated.
Arthur also cites an e-mail message allegedly sent by Frohman to Jim
Weiss, president, The I Trade Group Inc., in which he states, "Yeah,
I
deal in bootleg tapes . . . (video currently, but it was audio for 15
years.)"
Frohman also states he has "been running an online business with my
tapes for eight years."
Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy
business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's Troy
residence on June 20.
Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
Kent, WHY did you say he was convicted of FRAUD?
Got proof of that?
G > Somebody named TOP posted a link
G > to a story about indictment, and made
G > stupid hostile comments as if that proves
G > conviction, which of course it does NOT.
G >
G > Indictment and conviction are NOT the same thing.
KBW > A point no one has disputed.
KBW > You often like to dwell on points no one argues.
KBW > Why is that?
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/de81a571c5688686
Going for plausible deniability again, Hanson?
Why did you avoid the archives? Searching on google news withOUT
going
to the year, or withOUT using the archives, returns only recent news.
It
says so on the google news search page.
Of course you innocently missed that, right?
But then you have never failed to use archives before to stalk
others.
Mistake or lie. You tell us.
Care to explain all your lies about Frohman, or did you just ""not
know?"" LOL
TOP (The Other Pangborn)
G > Moe ran a friggin' CAMPAIGN of stalking and
G > harassment of the poor bastard for a DECADE,
G > yet somehow did NOT post actual PROOF!
KBW > First, she hadn't mentioned his name.
Kent, You are a retard in any language.
KBW > You are the one who became
KBW > obsessed with the man.
I just challenged her story, since she
ran a campaign of harassment against
him for a DECADE without posting proof
that he was actually convicted
of what she said.
KBW > Second, she did post proof.
Got a LINK? What date?
KBW > When Moe and I both posted the
KBW > proof that she posted the proof,
KBW > you RAN from the thread like the
KBW > lying loser you were, are and will
KBW > forever be. Pooooor widdle Gweggie.
G > It's STILL not definitive of that being
G > what he was convicted for, just a
G > reasonable conclusion.
KBW > If you would get off the illegal drugs
KBW > you admit you use and abuse, you
KBW > might be able to understand the
KBW > simpler things in life.
KBW > Like how to review proof when it's set before you.
Like proof Glen was convicted of FRAUD?
Set it before me, please.
womanGoddess
> SeanSpade: Did you miss that between Nov 6th
> and Nov 30 that I posted the link you reposted?
>
> It's STILL not definitive, but the indictment makes
> it reasonable to believe the incarceration was
> a result of copyright violation or something related to it.
>
> Somebody named TOP posted a link
> to a story about indictment, and made
> stupid hostile comments as if that proves
> conviction, which of course it does NOT.
>
> Indictment and conviction are NOT the same thing.
>
> Moe ran a friggin' CAMPAIGN of stalking and
> harassment of the poor bastard for a DECADE,
> yet somehow did NOT post actual PROOF!
>
> It's STILL not definitive of that being what
> he was convicted for, just a reasonable conclusion.
>
>
> GLEN FROHMAN 43481-061 49-White-M 02-23-2004 RELEASED
(( rolls eyes)) Doing your usual ignore the facts act Greg?
Are you going to deny now POSTING a copyrighted article of his
arrest, complete with details at that time?
Does your pretended ignorance of the facts include not reading the
article before you posted it?
Or are you now showing your mental deficiency?
Moe
Eternal FOREVER KNIGHT fan
" A vampire cop? REALLY?"
"http://home.earthlink.net/~19ranger57/blies.htm
Know your scum--- http://www.aboutkenpangborn.com
womanGoddess
> G > SeanSpade: Did you miss that between Nov 6th
> G > and Nov 30 that I posted the link you reposted?
> G >
> G > It's STILL not definitive, but the indictment makes
> G > it reasonable to believe the incarceration was
> G > a result of copyright violation or something related to it.
>
> KBW > Are you so stoned you think people go to
> KBW > federal prison for a civil crime? Really?
> KBW > He went due to committing fraud, stupid.
>
> Got proof?
> The original claim was that he was convicted of
> the crime of copyright violation.
> Now you're claiming he was imprisoned for FRAUD.
I am reluctant to say this but Kent, you are incorrect. Frohman was
convicted of two counts of conspiracy to violate copyright laws, not
fraud. He might have been convicted of fraud if someone within the
statue of limitations had reported him for his SSI "disability" act he
did where he claimed he was mentally retarded.
>
> [ Link to news story does not work, ]
>
(( copyrighted article snipped))
>
> Kent, WHY did you say he was convicted of FRAUD?
> Got proof of that?
My guess is that Kent had a momentary brain fart and confused your
snotty master Kennie with Frohman. While I could have prosecuted the
EBay thief for fraud considering the EBay auction he ripped me off
on, the end result of my battle with Frohman was more satisfying.
>
> G > Somebody named TOP posted a link
> G > to a story about indictment, and made
> G > stupid hostile comments as if that proves
> G > conviction, which of course it does NOT.
> G >
> G > Indictment and conviction are NOT the same thing.
>
> KBW > A point no one has disputed.
> KBW > You often like to dwell on points no one argues.
> KBW > Why is that?
>
> http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/...
>
> Going for plausible deniability again, Hanson?
>
> Why did you avoid the archives? Searching on google news withOUT
> going
> to the year, or withOUT using the archives, returns only recent news.
> It
> says so on the google news search page.
Exactly. I even in my instructions said click " all".
>
> Of course you innocently missed that, right?
Nothing about Gaggie is innocent.
>
> But then you have never failed to use archives before to stalk
> others.
> Mistake or lie. You tell us.
>
> http://www.google.com/url?sa=D&q=http://news.google.com/archivesearch...
>
> Care to explain all your lies about Frohman, or did you just ""not
> know?"" LOL
>
> TOP (The Other Pangborn)
>
> G > Moe ran a friggin' CAMPAIGN of stalking and
> G > harassment of the poor bastard for a DECADE,
> G > yet somehow did NOT post actual PROOF!
>
> KBW > First, she hadn't mentioned his name.
>
> Kent, You are a retard in any language.
You could prove your claim by showing the date of my first post in
alt SCPS where I mentioned Frohman's name and showing the first post
where YOU mentioned his name Greg.
But that would show that you posted his full name first.
>
> KBW > You are the one who became
> KBW > obsessed with the man.
>
> I just challenged her story, since she
> ran a campaign of harassment against
> him for a DECADE without posting proof
> that he was actually convicted
> of what she said.
And when I did show proof, you ran like the coward you are and now
you want to return to your denial act, even when you yourself posted
some of the proof.
More proof of your habitual lying ans stupidity.
>
> KBW > Second, she did post proof.
>
> Got a LINK? What date?
((rolls eyes)) Are you trying to deny I ever posted it?
Since I am one of your cyberstalking targets, how could you miss one
of my regular usenet posts? Particularly since I don't post every day.
Having memory retention problems Greg, or is this part of your "
game"?
>
> KBW > When Moe and I both posted the
> KBW > proof that she posted the proof,
> KBW > you RAN from the thread like the
> KBW > lying loser you were, are and will
> KBW > forever be. Pooooor widdle Gweggie.
>
> G > It's STILL not definitive of that being
> G > what he was convicted for, just a
> G > reasonable conclusion.
>
> KBW > If you would get off the illegal drugs
> KBW > you admit you use and abuse, you
> KBW > might be able to understand the
> KBW > simpler things in life.
> KBW > Like how to review proof when it's set before you.
>
Greegor
womanGoddess
Greegor
of the FAIR USE exception to the copyright
law is. Can you guess why copyright holders
do not like the full extent of the FAIR USE
exception?
Did you think that just because every published
news report has a very restrictive copyright claim
at the bottom that this was absolute and without
an exception?
Did you think that said publishers would be
anxious to ANNOUNCE these exceptions??
M
> On Fri, 6 Nov 2009 12:17:04 -0800 (PST), Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> [Snips for brevity]
>
> >> > > Arthur states he also retrieved evidence of Frohman's video piracy
> >> > > business from trash placed for collection in front of Frohman's Troy
> >> > > residence on June 20.
> >> > > Copyright, 2002, Cox Ohio Publishing. All rights reserved.
>
> >> > > Illustration: PHOTO: Glen Frohman
>
> >X > copyrighted by a newspaper......
>
> >So WHO is the dumbass who doesn't
> >know what FAIR USE is, and WHY it exists??
>
> Gregory Scott Hanson, obviously.
> Fair use allows you to copy portions for discussion. It does not
> allow for the copying of the entire work.
> I've explained this to you in the past. I even cited where in
> copyright law you will find this.
> Yes, you think you're exempt from all criminal and civil law.
> Your record, in addition to your current actions, proves this.
>
> [...]
>
>
>
> >> =A0Oh greg, here's where I posted Frohman's convict number:
>
> >http://groups.google.com/group/rec.collecting.cards.non-sports/msg/85...
> >7ec195c7?hl=3Den&dmode=3Dsource
>
> >Moe > I even had a link where people can see for themselves in the
> >post.
>
> >The link is broken and as far as I can tell never did work.
>
> It worked before. Using the instructions Moe posted for you, I
> had no problem finding it, and two other items directly related to his
> conviction.
>
>
>
> >http://inmateloc.bop.gov/locatorservlet/gov.bop.inmatelocator.FindInm...
> >pServle
>
> >Let's break that down:
>
> >http://inmateloc.bop.gov/
>
> >Dead. Is it in the internet archive?
>
> Worked for me. Granted, that was many weeks ago. It could have
> become inactive since then.
> Well, whatdayaknow? The B.O.P. site is still working.
>
>
>
> >What STATE would that be for?
>
> Are you so stoned you think the B.O.P. is state run?
>
> >Why no designation of state or Federal?
>
> What do you think the B.O.P. is, stupid?
>
>
>
> >Why is there an http in the MIDDLE of that link?
>
> Once again you PROVE you know NOTHING of computing.
>
> >Why is the word servlet chopped off even
> >way back in 2004?
>
> You know NOTHING of computing. I think everyone accepts this.
> Certainly no one, not even you, has ever presented a denial.
> By YOUR standards, your lack of a denial is equal to an admission
> that the claim you know NOTHING of computing is true.
>
>
>
> >http://inmateloc.bop.gov/locatorservlet/gov.bop.inmatelocator.FindInm...
> >pServle
>
> >How could this LINK have EVER worked with
> >http in the middle and servlet chopped off?
>
> It worked very well. You're just too stoned to understand it.
>
>
>
> >You said people could check for themselves.
>
> >But that's not really true, is it Maureen?
>
> Maybe she should have written, "People who aren't mentally
> retarded due to massive use and abuse of illegal drugs can check for
> themselves. People like Gregory Scott Hanson will need A LOT of
> help."? That would have been far more accurate.
>
>
>
> >Moe > =A0So Greg, are you still claiming that he was never convicted?
>
> >I never claimed that he wasn't convicted.
>
> Not in those words, but the context was and is there.
>
> >I claimed you stalked him for over 10 years
> >and haven't posted online verifiable PROOF
> >that he was CONVICTED.
>
> You've yet to offer evidence, let along proof, that she's stalked
> anyone for over 10 years. You mentioned someone named Bobbi, but when
> asked just which of the potentially millions of people named Bobbi you
> meant, you RAN from the posts.
>
>
>
> >I saw proof he was indicted, and one of your
> >anonymous henchmen posted it as if proof
> >of indictment was proof of conviction.
>
> >Did you refer to 43481-061 in any other posts online?
>
> >Is that a state or Federal number?
>
> Are you so stoned you don't know what the B.O.P. is?
>
>
>
> >You DO know that an indictment is NOT a conviction, right, Moe?
>
> I've yet to see Moe claim, directly or through implication, that
> it is.
>
> 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 Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, or proving he's so
> stupid he thinks I'm Asian.
> MID:<c6bac3f6-7a0e-4bf8-8ddd-d77bccfc6...@p49g2000hsd.googlegroups.com>http://groups.google.com/group/misc.legal/msg/395db830731df54ahttp://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 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."
> -- Greg Scott Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
> Message-ID: <35120b16.0401111639.6825f...@posting.google.com>
>
> " ... 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 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>
> 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
Greegor
KBW > since you didn't post anything in the way of a reply.
LOL
Greegor
G > of the FAIR USE exception to copyright law.
G >
G > I want to see it.
KBW > Already did.
Post a LINK!
M
KBW > Second, she did post proof.
Got a LINK? What date?
KBW > When Moe and I both posted the
KBW > proof that she posted the proof,
> >Moe ran a friggin' CAMPAIGN of stalking and
> >harassment of the poor bastard for a DECADE,
> >yet somehow did NOT post actual PROOF!
>
> First, she hadn't mentioned his name. You are the one who became
> obsessed with the man.
> Second, she did post proof. When Moe and I both posted the proof
> that she posted the proof, you RAN from the thread like the lying
> loser you were, are and will forever be.
> Pooooor widdle Gweggie.
>
>
>
> >It's STILL not definitive of that being what
> >he was convicted for, just a reasonable conclusion.
>
> If you would get off the illegal drugs you admit you use and
> abuse, you might be able to understand the simpler things in life.
> Like how to review proof when it's set before you.
>
>
>
> >http://www.bop.gov/iloc2/InmateFinderServlet?Transaction=NameSearch&F...
>
> >GLEN FROHMAN 43481-061 49-White-M 02-23-2004 RELEASED
> On Tue, 1 Dec 2009 04:59:55 -0800 (PST), Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >SeanSpade: Did you miss that between Nov 6th
> >and Nov 30 that I posted the link you reposted?
>
> >It's STILL not definitive, but the indictment makes
> >it reasonable to believe the incarceration was
> >a result of copyright violation or something related to it.
>
> Are you so stoned you think people go to federal prison for a
> civil crime? Really?
> He went due to committing fraud, stupid.
>
>
>
> >Somebody named TOP posted a link
> >to a story about indictment, and made
> >stupid hostile comments as if that proves
> >conviction, which of course it does NOT.
>
> >Indictment and conviction are NOT the same thing.
>
> A point no one has disputed.
> You often like to dwell on points no one argues. Why is that?
>
>
>
>
> A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott 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 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 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 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 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>
> Newsgroups:
> misc.kids,alt.support.foster-parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services
>
> With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
> into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
> videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
> was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
> water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
> a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
> gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
> were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
> She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
> prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."
>
> "Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
> triumphantly.
>
> --a true story
>
> As of Sunday, Nov. 29, 2009:
>
> Financials
> Title: STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREG SCOTT
> Case: 06571 AGCR015216 (LINN)
> Citation Number:
>
> Summary Orig Paid Due
> COSTS 9200.00 850.00 8350.00
> FINE 500.00 500.00 0.00
> SURCHARGE 150.00 150.00 0.00
> RESTITUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00
> OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00
>
> $9850.00 $1500.00 $8350.00
>
> Yes, Greg still owes over $8000.00 related to his convictions for
> BEATING his ex-wife.
>You DO realize that after all of your denials, this
>is a tacit admission that it's you in the photo, right?
Is that why you snipped the part of the post where she states it
is not?
Are you so stoned you actually think your lie might slip by
without being exposed as the drug induced lie it is?
Greegor
G > Got a LINK? What date?
KBW > When Moe and I both posted the
KBW > proof that she posted the proof,
Why talk about proof that she posted the proof?
Post a LINK, Kent!
[...]
G > You DO realize that after all of your denials, this
G > is a tacit admission that it's you in the photo, right?
M > Is that why you snipped the part of the post
M > where she states it is not?
M > Are you so stoned you actually think your lie
M > might slip by without being exposed as the
M > drug induced lie it is?
Kent, You are an idiot.
How long did you think your socks
would fool anybody?
A. Calling opponent drunk
B. Calling opponent drugged
C. Calling opponent mentally ill
D. Opponent already conceded whatever Kent says
Come up with some more Polish Jihadh strategy, Kent!
Ask Stashu Ulanowski for help.
Greegor
up front she was buying a bootleg, but then started a ten
year crusade against that one guy over COPYRIGHT LAW??
She reminds me of the occasional idiots who go to
the Police complaining that they PAID for some
kind of street drugs and they weren't delivered!
Except she started a TEN YEAR campaign of stalking
and harassment against the poor bastard who sold
it to her.
krp
"Greegor" <gree...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:34c2b338-8f2a-4fbd...@f10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
AND she had had a WEBSITE devoted to her VENDETTA!
womanGoddess
How many times must you ask the same dumbass wrong question Greg
based on the lies you want to claim are the truth?
I answered why a LONG time ago.
Why is if that I have to repeat myself to you and to Kennie as if
you two were imbeciles?
I just answered my own question. :-D