Kent Wills and Dan Sullivan apologise for tyranny
Andrew Usher
criticise them, which amounts to endorsing what they do.
And what do they do? They exercise extra-legal authority over
everyone's raising their children. They can take your children or set
near-arbitrary conditions on retaining them without the need for a
trial. In any other field, we'd call that tyranny. The official
justification may be that losing one's children is not a criminal
punishment, buut people ACT like it is a punishment; they normally
seek to avoid it as much as they seek to avoid jail.
Andrew Usher
krp
"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:fe01cf18-4f7c-4352...@u46g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
What DAN advocates is to COOPERATE with the GESTAPO!
Kent Wills
<k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>That's basically the issue: that they here defend CPS, or refuse to
>criticise them, which amounts to endorsing what they do.
>
How, exactly, does Dan's criticizing CPS equate to an endorsement?
How, exactly, does my pointing out the flaws with CPS equate to an
endorsement?
Be specific in both answers.
>And what do they do? They exercise extra-legal authority over
>everyone's raising their children. T
Please cite one time where either of us have exercised legal
authority, extra or not, over anyone else's raising of their
child(ren).
If you prefer, you may admit you are lying.
>hey can take your children or set
>near-arbitrary conditions on retaining them without the need for a
>trial.
Can you offer a cite where Dan or I have made such a claim?
>In any other field, we'd call that tyranny. The official
>justification may be that losing one's children is not a criminal
>punishment, buut people ACT like it is a punishment;
It is a form of punishment, but not CRIMINAL (I did note that you
didn't include the word criminal in your comment about acting like
it's punishment). And it's more to protect the child than punishing
the parent(s).
>they normally
>seek to avoid it as much as they seek to avoid jail.
>
Which is why, I suspect, the reason Dan gives the suggestions he
does. His suggestions minimize the length of the "punishment" the
parents may endure.
--
When cryptography is outlawed,
bayl bhgynjf jvyy unir cevinpl.
Dan Sullivan
> "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
If a family has lost their children to CPS because of a false
allegation I suggest that the parents complete a parenting course
(usually ten classes) ASAP rather than let them wait for CPS to
present them with a service agreement, which usually takes months. And
during that same time period the parents can gather the evidence that
the allegation was false.
And when CPS eventually brings the parents to Court to have the Judge
order services the parent's attny can inform the Judge that the
parents have already completed a parenting course and are ready to
prove the allegations are in error and (usually) that CPS is
falsifying information about the parents.
If there was drug or alcohol use some form of counseling would also be
necessary and appropriate.
And if the home was a pig sty, as in the Lisa Watkins-grag hanson
case, the parents could clean the place up and photography the
results.
IOW the parents need to prove the allegations to be false, that they
are fit parents, and that the children will be safe and secure back
home with them.
Dan Sullivan
pornbag, what would you recommend the parents do if their children
were removed because of a false allegation of CAN?
Reality_CheckŠ
> That's basically the issue: that they here defend CPS, or refuse to
> criticise them, which amounts to endorsing what they do.
"The jury returned a verdict finding Kent 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."
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
Name Kent Bradley Wills
Offender Number 1155768
Sex M
Birth Date 01/08/1969
Age 38
Location Interstate Compact
Offense BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE
County Of Commitment Polk
Commitment Date 01/16/2004
Duration
TDD/SDD *01/16/2009
>
> And what do they do? They exercise extra-legal authority over
> everyone's raising their children. They can take your children or set
> near-arbitrary conditions on retaining them without the need for a
> trial. In any other field, we'd call that tyranny. The official
> justification may be that losing one's children is not a criminal
> punishment, buut people ACT like it is a punishment; they normally
> seek to avoid it as much as they seek to avoid jail.
If you have any complaints against Kent Wills, now is the time
to foward them to the Iowa Dept. of Corrections, as his tenative
discharge date is rapidly approaching - 1/16/09
>http://WWW.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/2005050...
>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.
>
> Andrew Usher
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:e7377085-6228-4e3c...@k37g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
>
> > That's basically the issue: that they here defend CPS, or refuse to
> > criticise them, which amounts to endorsing what they do.
>
> > And what do they do? They exercise extra-legal authority over
> > everyone's raising their children. They can take your children or set
> > near-arbitrary conditions on retaining them without the need for a
> > trial. In any other field, we'd call that tyranny. The official
> > justification may be that losing one's children is not a criminal
> > punishment, buut people ACT like it is a punishment; they normally
> > seek to avoid it as much as they seek to avoid jail.
>
> What DAN advocates is to COOPERATE with the GESTAPO!
If a family has lost their children to CPS because of a false
allegation I suggest that the parents complete a parenting course
LEGAL ADVICE DANNY - PRACTICING LAW WITHOUT A LICENSE.
Oh behalf of CPS!
krp
I'm not the little Usenet dipshit who THINKS he's a lawyer ADVISING
people what to do. THAT IS YOU, SULLIVAN!
Kent Wills
Whine about it.
"3 year old GIRL Kunt."
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, of KRP Consulting and The A-Team,
commenting on a three-year-old girl's vagina.
Message-ID: <78RZj.7110$3j.6866@trnddc05>
Kent Wills
Only within the confines of your alcoholic delusions.
>
>Oh behalf of CPS!
>
You need to accept that Dan isn't with CPS. That he's able to
help people prevail while you can only bitch doesn't mean he's working
for CPS.
"Miranda was a STUPID WASTE OF TIME AND DID NOTHING!"
-- Kenneth Robert Pangborn of KRP Consulting and The A-Team.
Kent Wills
<Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>Andrew Usher wrote:
>> That's basically the issue: that they here defend CPS, or refuse to
>> criticise them, which amounts to endorsing what they do.
>
>"The jury returned a verdict finding Kent 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."
Your racist hate for my family just won't allow you to be honest.
It's a pity.
Fortunately, you've been able to accept that your lying is
motivated by your racism, so there is hope for you.
Me:
Given that like you, tjab doesn't believe I'm Kent Wills, unless
he's been lying about what he calls Rule #1, he'll likely feel the
burn for a bit. Metaphorically anyway.
Prof. Jonez/Reality Check/assorted other nyms:
Yep ... a serious mark !
Me:
Wow. I wouldn't expect you to agree with me.
Message-ID: <h9qgf459avb5pmnjf...@4ax.com>
Reality_CheckŠ
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:09:25 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>> Andrew Usher wrote:
>>> That's basically the issue: that they here defend CPS, or refuse to
>>> criticise them, which amounts to endorsing what they do.
>>
>> "The jury returned a verdict finding Kent 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."
>
> Your racist hate for my family just won't allow you to be honest.
You're lying again, Kunt. You've offered no proof whatsoever that
you even have a family.
Now go fuck yourself you lowlife child-molesting felon.
Kent Wills
<Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>Kent Wills wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:09:25 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>
>>> Andrew Usher wrote:
>>>> That's basically the issue: that they here defend CPS, or refuse to
>>>> criticise them, which amounts to endorsing what they do.
>>>
>>> "The jury returned a verdict finding Kent 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."
>>
>> Your racist hate for my family just won't allow you to be honest.
>
>You're lying again, Kunt. You've offered no proof whatsoever that
>you even have a family.
You're lying, still.
If I don't have a family, why did you call for them to be killed
for not being white?
>
>Now go fuck yourself you lowlife child-molesting felon.
>
Projecting your sick sexual interest in children only serves to
harm you.
Reality_CheckŠ
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 18:09:25 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:09:25 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
>>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Andrew Usher wrote:
>>>>> That's basically the issue: that they here defend CPS, or refuse
>>>>> to criticise them, which amounts to endorsing what they do.
>>>>
>>>> "The jury returned a verdict finding Kent 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."
>>>
>>> Your racist hate for my family just won't allow you to be honest.
>>
>> You're lying again, Kunt. You've offered no proof whatsoever that
>> you even have a family.
>
> You're lying, still.
Prove it.
> If I don't have a family,
You've offered no proof whatsoever that you even have a family, Kunt.
Kent Wills
<Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>Kent Wills wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 18:09:25 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>
>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:09:25 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
>>>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Andrew Usher wrote:
>>>>>> That's basically the issue: that they here defend CPS, or refuse
>>>>>> to criticise them, which amounts to endorsing what they do.
>>>>>
>>>>> "The jury returned a verdict finding Kent 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."
>>>>
>>>> Your racist hate for my family just won't allow you to be honest.
>>>
>>> You're lying again, Kunt. You've offered no proof whatsoever that
>>> you even have a family.
>>
>> You're lying, still.
>
>Prove it.
Your own words do that so well.
>
>> If I don't have a family, why did you call for them to be killed
>> for not being white?
>
>You've offered no proof whatsoever that you even have a family, Kunt.
>
>
Then why, exactly, did you call for them to be killed for not
being white?
Your pathetic attempt to avoid answering the question only serves
to further prove your racist agenda.
From the proven racist and admitted pedophile, Prof. Jonez:
Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies !
You've claimed numerous times that it *is* you, you
lying piece of shit. [made in regards to why he claims my name in
real life is Kent Wills]
The proven racist and self-admitted pedophile proves he never
believed my name in real life is Kent Wills. Or he's been lying about
believing what he calls Rule #1.
Reality_CheckŠ
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 21:20:03 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 18:09:25 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
>>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:09:25 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
>>>>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Andrew Usher wrote:
>>>>>>> That's basically the issue: that they here defend CPS, or refuse
>>>>>>> to criticise them, which amounts to endorsing what they do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "The jury returned a verdict finding Kent 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."
>>>>>
>>>>> Your racist hate for my family just won't allow you to be
>>>>> honest.
>>>>
>>>> You're lying again, Kunt. You've offered no proof whatsoever that
>>>> you even have a family.
>>>
>>> You're lying, still.
>>
>> Prove it.
>
> Your own words do that so well.
Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies!
>
>>
>>> If I don't have a family, why did you call for them to be killed
>>> for not being white?
>>
>> You've offered no proof whatsoever that you even have a family, Kunt.
>>
>>
>
> Then why,
Rule #1.
"The jury returned a verdict finding Kent 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."
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768
> http://WWW.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/2005050...
> WIGGINS, Justice.
> 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
Kent Wills
<Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>Kent Wills wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 21:20:03 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>
>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 18:09:25 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
>>>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:09:25 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
>>>>>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Andrew Usher wrote:
>>>>>>>> That's basically the issue: that they here defend CPS, or refuse
>>>>>>>> to criticise them, which amounts to endorsing what they do.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "The jury returned a verdict finding Kent 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."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your racist hate for my family just won't allow you to be
>>>>>> honest.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're lying again, Kunt. You've offered no proof whatsoever that
>>>>> you even have a family.
>>>>
>>>> You're lying, still.
>>>
>>> Prove it.
>>
>> Your own words do that so well.
>
>Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies!
>
I'd ask you to prove one, but since you've never been able, there's
no reason to presume you'll suddenly be able now.
>>
>>>
>>>> If I don't have a family, why did you call for them to be killed
>>>> for not being white?
>>>
>>> You've offered no proof whatsoever that you even have a family, Kunt.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Then why, exactly, did you call for them to be killed for not
>> being white?
>
>Rule #1.
>
Ah... "Prof. Jonez is a bigot who will lie at every opportunity,"
which is, as you know, Rule Number One, would explain it.
I admire your ability to overcome your racial hate for my family
long enough to admit the truth. I hope this is an indication of your
acceptance that your racism is something that belongs in the past.
[...]
>
>
>>
>> And what do they do? They exercise extra-legal authority over
>> everyone's raising their children. They can take your children or set
>> near-arbitrary conditions on retaining them without the need for a
>> trial. In any other field, we'd call that tyranny. The official
>> justification may be that losing one's children is not a criminal
>> punishment, buut people ACT like it is a punishment; they normally
>> seek to avoid it as much as they seek to avoid jail.
>
>
>If you have any complaints against Kent Wills, now is the time
>to foward them to the Iowa Dept. of Corrections, as his tenative
>discharge date is rapidly approaching - 1/16/09
>
They will learn, as you did, unless you lied about turning me in
for possessing guns, that there is no such person with that name on
probation (or is it parole, you're not too sure yourself) at this
time.
They don't need to take my word for it. They can call/write and
learn what you did. I expect they'll be able to be honest about it,
unlike you.
Andrew Usher
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 01:02:54 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Usher
>
> >That's basically the issue: that they here defend CPS, or refuse to
> >criticise them, which amounts to endorsing what they do.
>
> How, exactly, does Dan's criticizing CPS equate to an endorsement?
> How, exactly, does my pointing out the flaws with CPS equate to an
> endorsement?
> Be specific in both answers.
First, you be specific about how you and Dan have criticised CPS.
> >And what do they do? They exercise extra-legal authority over
> >everyone's raising their children. T
>
> Please cite one time where either of us have exercised legal
> authority, extra or not, over anyone else's raising of their
> child(ren).
You know whoy 'they' above refers go. Don't play fucking games.
> If you prefer, you may admit you are lying.
Are you just trolling or trying to defame me?
> >they normally
> >seek to avoid it as much as they seek to avoid jail.
>
> Which is why, I suspect, the reason Dan gives the suggestions he
> does. His suggestions minimize the length of the "punishment" the
> parents may endure.
The problem is that they have to endure it at all. But that's
perfectly OK with you, right? After all, it will never happen
to you!
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> And if the home was a pig sty, as in the Lisa Watkins-grag hanson
> case, the parents could clean the place up and photography the
> results.
More evidence of your obsession with Greg. Even if he were guilty
of everything you imagine, it wouldn't make him wrong.
Andrew Usher
krp
> On Oct 18, 6:16 am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 01:02:54 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Usher
>>
>> <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >That's basically the issue: that they here defend CPS, or refuse to
>> >criticise them, which amounts to endorsing what they do.
>>
>> How, exactly, does Dan's criticizing CPS equate to an endorsement?
>> How, exactly, does my pointing out the flaws with CPS equate to an
>> endorsement?
>> Be specific in both answers.
>
> First, you be specific about how you and Dan have criticised CPS.
>
>> >And what do they do? They exercise extra-legal authority over
>> >everyone's raising their children. T
>>
>> Please cite one time where either of us have exercised legal
>> authority, extra or not, over anyone else's raising of their
>> child(ren).
>
> You know whoy 'they' above refers go. Don't play fucking games.
>
>> If you prefer, you may admit you are lying.
>
> Are you just trolling or trying to defame me?
>
>> >they normally
>> >seek to avoid it as much as they seek to avoid jail.
>>
>> Which is why, I suspect, the reason Dan gives the suggestions he
>> does. His suggestions minimize the length of the "punishment" the
>> parents may endure.
(Those "suggestions" *ARE* in fact the unauthorized PRACTICE OF LAW. It is
giving "legal advice" Wills is hoping that Polish semantics work in a court
of law. Which is why his appeal did so well. <LOUD COUGH>
> The problem is that they have to endure it at all. But that's
> perfectly OK with you, right? After all, it will never happen
> to you!
The problem, Andy, is that by knuckling under to CPS and doing their
"performance agreements" you are AGREEING to their sovereignty over your
family FOREVER! So even if ATTORNEY SULLIVAN'S "legal advice" works in the
short term, in the long term you run a high RISK that the bastards will be
back in your livingroom. ONE SUBSTANTIAL THING HAS CHANGED..............
Following ATTORNEY SULLIVAN'S legal advice, when they come BACK, they no
longer need a warrant! (Read the fine print on those agreements that allow
"unannounced inspections" etc.)
I might consider that Sullivan, as he dispenses this LEGAL ADVICE is
just incredibly stupid, but I don't think so. I think he's a clever M-F'r
and knows EXACTLY what he is doing. SELLING acceptance of the performance
agreements. He does that on a fairly frequent basis and makes strong
arguments for doing EXACTLY what CPS tells you to do. He can show cases
where people got their kids back. HOWEVER he will NOT tell you about when
they LOST them again and often PERMANENTLY by taking his LEGAL ADVICE (or
play Polish semantics and call it "SUGGESTIONS.")
Bullshit, Andy, remains putrid bullshit no matter how much Febreeze you
pour on it!
Dragon's Girl
> "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
Did you know that you can sign a case plan, which typically outlines
the service agreement, without agreeing to it?
Dan Sullivan
Dan Sullivan
> "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:28a6d7b9-b628-4353...@v15g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Oct 18, 6:16 am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 01:02:54 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Usher
>
> >> <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >> >That's basically the issue: that they here defend CPS, or refuse to
> >> >criticise them, which amounts to endorsing what they do.
>
> >> How, exactly, does Dan's criticizing CPS equate to an endorsement?
> >> How, exactly, does my pointing out the flaws with CPS equate to an
> >> endorsement?
> >> Be specific in both answers.
>
> > First, you be specific about how you and Dan have criticised CPS.
You can read my criticism of CPS in the asCPS archives.
> >> >And what do they do? They exercise extra-legal authority over
> >> >everyone's raising their children. T
>
> >> Please cite one time where either of us have exercised legal
> >> authority, extra or not, over anyone else's raising of their
> >> child(ren).
>
> > You know whoy 'they' above refers go. Don't play fucking games.
>
> >> If you prefer, you may admit you are lying.
>
> > Are you just trolling or trying to defame me?
>
> >> >they normally
> >> >seek to avoid it as much as they seek to avoid jail.
>
> >> Which is why, I suspect, the reason Dan gives the suggestions he
> >> does. His suggestions minimize the length of the "punishment" the
> >> parents may endure.
And the length of time the children are in foster care.
> (Those "suggestions" *ARE* in fact the unauthorized PRACTICE OF LAW. It is
> giving "legal advice"
Is it "legal advice" to suggest to a parent that they should take a
parenting course before they are Court ordered to do so?
> > The problem is that they have to endure it at all. But that's
> > perfectly OK with you, right? After all, it will never happen
> > to you!
>
> The problem, Andy, is that by knuckling under to CPS and doing their
> "performance agreements" you are AGREEING to their sovereignty over your
> family FOREVER!
I suggest the parents do what's necessary and appropriate before the
Court orders the services.
> So even if ATTORNEY SULLIVAN'S "legal advice" works in the
> short term, in the long term you run a high RISK that the bastards will be
> back in your livingroom.
I suggest the parents do what's necessary and appropriate before the
Court orders the services.
So they get their kids back ASAP.
That's what you are referring to as "short term."
And even if the parents choose to go for the "LONG TERM" ken pangborn
and his A-Team resolution, NOTHING will stop an anonymous phone call
from starting a new CPS investigation all over again.
> ONE SUBSTANTIAL THING HAS CHANGED..............
> Following ATTORNEY SULLIVAN'S legal advice, when they come BACK, they no
> longer need a warrant! (Read the fine print on those agreements that allow
> "unannounced inspections" etc.)
What do you recommend the parents do if their children were removed
because of a false allegation of CAN, pornbag?
> I might consider that Sullivan, as he dispenses this LEGAL ADVICE is
> just incredibly stupid, but I don't think so. I think he's a clever M-F'r
> and knows EXACTLY what he is doing. SELLING acceptance of the performance
> agreements.
I suggest the parents do what's necessary and appropriate before the
Court orders the services.
> He does that on a fairly frequent basis and makes strong
> arguments for doing EXACTLY what CPS tells you to do.
I suggest the parents do what's necessary and appropriate before the
Court orders the services.
> He can show cases
> where people got their kids back.
That I can.
> HOWEVER he will NOT tell you about when
> they LOST them again and often PERMANENTLY by taking his LEGAL ADVICE
No one I helped get their kids back ever lost them again because of
something I suggested.
Prove otherwise.
Kent Wills
<k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 18, 6:16 am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 01:02:54 -0700 (PDT), Andrew Usher
>>
>> <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> >That's basically the issue: that they here defend CPS, or refuse to
>> >criticise them, which amounts to endorsing what they do.
>>
>> How, exactly, does Dan's criticizing CPS equate to an endorsement?
>> How, exactly, does my pointing out the flaws with CPS equate to an
>> endorsement?
>> Be specific in both answers.
>
>First, you be specific about how you and Dan have criticised CPS.
>
Avoidance noted.
Now that you've gotten that out of the way, please answer the
questions raised.
>> >And what do they do? They exercise extra-legal authority over
>> >everyone's raising their children. T
>>
>> Please cite one time where either of us have exercised legal
>> authority, extra or not, over anyone else's raising of their
>> child(ren).
>
>You know whoy 'they' above refers go.
>
By the subject, "Kent Wills and Dan Sullivan apologise for
tyranny," you meant Dan and me.
Now that you played your avoidance game, again, please offer a
cite to back up your claim or admit it's the intentional act of
deception it was intended to be.
> Don't play fucking games.
Truth may well be a game in your eyes. I don't see it that way.
>> If you prefer, you may admit you are lying.
>
>Are you just trolling or trying to defame me?
That you can't handle the truth is your issue to address, not
mine.
Your writing made it clear you were discussion Dan and me. If you
intended to switch topics, you went out of your way to ensure this
wouldn't be seen.
>
>> >they normally
>> >seek to avoid it as much as they seek to avoid jail.
>>
>> Which is why, I suspect, the reason Dan gives the suggestions he
>> does. His suggestions minimize the length of the "punishment" the
>> parents may endure.
>
>The problem is that they have to endure it at all.
That parents must endure the absence of their children when the
accusation is false is horrible.
When a false accusation is malicious, the accuser should be
punished in some way. I've been lobbying for Iowa to make
*intentionally* filing a false complaint a criminal offence, for
several years.
Of course, the malicious intent would need to be proved in a court
of law in order to punish the person(s) who filed the complaint.
That aside, if enduring a few days or weeks without my children in
the home ensures another child won't be abused, I would be willing to
endure it. I can state with authority, have discussed the matter with
her, that Lindsay feels the same.
But then we don't see children as objects as so many in the
Anti-Child Protection camp do.
>But that's
>perfectly OK with you, right? After all, it will never happen
>to you!
>
I don't expect it will happen to me. Especially after a social
worker lost his career after dealing with me. But that's not the
point. The point is your claims regarding Dan and me, and your
inability to support your claims in any way.
Kent Wills
<k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 18, 7:59 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> And if the home was a pig sty, as in the Lisa Watkins-grag hanson
>> case, the parents could clean the place up and photography the
>> results.
>
>More evidence of your obsession with Greg.
With your deceptive snipping away the context, it would appear as
such.
>Even if he were guilty
>of everything you imagine, it wouldn't make him wrong.
>
WHAT?
Greg's freely admitted to various forms of abuse. Bar his having
lied, he offered the evidence of his guilt.
How, exactly, does/did his abusing a little girl who is unable to
defend herself from the abuse, make him right? Be specific in your
reply.
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons...
for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Kent Wills
[...]
>>> >they normally
>>> >seek to avoid it as much as they seek to avoid jail.
>>>
>>> Which is why, I suspect, the reason Dan gives the suggestions he
>>> does. His suggestions minimize the length of the "punishment" the
>>> parents may endure.
>
>(Those "suggestions" *ARE* in fact the unauthorized PRACTICE OF LAW.
Only within the mental illness you've twice admitted you have due
to your alcoholism.
>It is
>giving "legal advice" Wills is hoping that Polish semantics work in a court
>of law. Which is why his appeal did so well. <LOUD COUGH>
Outside of your drunken stupors, I've filed no appeal.
One must be convicted of a crime in order to appeal. Really.
>
>> The problem is that they have to endure it at all. But that's
>> perfectly OK with you, right? After all, it will never happen
>> to you!
>
> The problem, Andy, is that by knuckling under to CPS and doing their
>"performance agreements" you are AGREEING to their sovereignty over your
>family FOREVER!
If no performance agreement has been presented, one can't agree to
it.
How is it that such a simple concept escapes you?
>So even if ATTORNEY SULLIVAN'S
Outside of your alcoholic delusions, Dan's not an attorney.
>"legal advice" works in the
>short term, in the long term you run a high RISK that the bastards will be
>back in your livingroom. ONE SUBSTANTIAL THING HAS CHANGED..............
>Following ATTORNEY SULLIVAN'S legal advice, when they come BACK, they no
>longer need a warrant! (Read the fine print on those agreements that allow
>"unannounced inspections" etc.)
Again, if no agreement has been presented, one can't accept it.
You seem to have a real problem with this.
By your standards, you've accepted a contract from me to clean my
pool twice a week for $8.00. I've never presented such a contract, so
a mentally sound person wouldn't see you as accepting it, but you
will.
>
> I might consider that Sullivan, as he dispenses this LEGAL ADVICE is
>just incredibly stupid, but I don't think so. I think he's a clever M-F'r
>and knows EXACTLY what he is doing.
Offering sound suggestions that reunite families in the shortest
time possible.
>SELLING acceptance of the performance
>agreements.
Once again, since you need the same thing pointed out multiple
times; If no agreement has been presented, one can't accept it.
Again you go out of your way to prove you've never attended any
collegiate classes.
>He does that on a fairly frequent basis and makes strong
>arguments for doing EXACTLY what CPS tells you to do.
Why, exactly, are you lying?
>He can show cases
>where people got their kids back. HOWEVER he will NOT tell you about when
>they LOST them again and often PERMANENTLY by taking his LEGAL ADVICE (or
>play Polish semantics and call it "SUGGESTIONS.")
Cite just one time when anyone had their children removed again,
temporarily or permanently, after following the suggestions offered by
Dan. Just one is all I ask.
If you wish, you may admit you don't know of any case and are
being deceptive.
>
> Bullshit, Andy, remains putrid bullshit no matter how much Febreeze you
>pour on it!
A perfect description of your posts.
From:
"Kenneth R. Pangborn, MS" <pang...@a-team.org>
James Giglio wrote:
> "Exhibit 23" makes no sense. Apparently, my name is on it, along with
> Michelle Deveraux and Chris Barden. Can anybody explain?
>
I feel so hurt. Diana doesn't even name me. Doesn't she know how
important I am?
Message-ID:<4891B76D...@a-team.org>
Dan Sullivan
> On Oct 18, 6:16 am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
<<<snip>>>
> > Which is why, I suspect, the reason Dan gives the suggestions he
> > does. His suggestions minimize the length of the "punishment" the
> > parents may endure.
>
> The problem is that they have to endure it at all. But that's
> perfectly OK with you, right?
It's not OK with me and that's why I help get the children back to
their parents in the "SHORT TERM."
Andrew Usher
> >> And if the home was a pig sty, as in the Lisa Watkins-grag hanson
> >> case, the parents could clean the place up and photography the
> >> results.
>
> >More evidence of your obsession with Greg.
>
> With your deceptive snipping away the context, it would appear as
> such.
Unlike you I don't engage in deception.
> >Even if he were guilty
> >of everything you imagine, it wouldn't make him wrong.
>
> WHAT?
> Greg's freely admitted to various forms of abuse. Bar his having
> lied, he offered the evidence of his guilt.
> How, exactly, does/did his abusing a little girl who is unable to
> defend herself from the abuse, make him right? Be specific in your
> reply.
It's called 'ad hominem'. Look it up.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> > >> Which is why, I suspect, the reason Dan gives the suggestions he
> > >> does. His suggestions minimize the length of the "punishment" the
> > >> parents may endure.
>
> And the length of time the children are in foster care.
So you're admitting that foster care is a bad thing? Yet the system
you support thinks it's better to remove kids to it based on
unsupported allegations!
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> >> How, exactly, does Dan's criticizing CPS equate to an endorsement?
> >> How, exactly, does my pointing out the flaws with CPS equate to an
> >> endorsement?
> >> Be specific in both answers.
>
> >First, you be specific about how you and Dan have criticised CPS.
>
> Avoidance noted.
> Now that you've gotten that out of the way, please answer the
> questions raised.
As your argument relies on that premise, it's reasonable for me
to demand support for it. You're evading as usual.
> >> >And what do they do? They exercise extra-legal authority over
> >> >everyone's raising their children. T
>
> >> Please cite one time where either of us have exercised legal
> >> authority, extra or not, over anyone else's raising of their
> >> child(ren).
>
> >You know whoy 'they' above refers go.
>
> By the subject, "Kent Wills and Dan Sullivan apologise for
> tyranny," you meant Dan and me.
> Now that you played your avoidance game, again, please offer a
> cite to back up your claim or admit it's the intentional act of
> deception it was intended to be.
What's intentional is your misinterpreting what I wrote. I write for
people that have a brain and are able to figure out what pronouns
refer to.
> >> If you prefer, you may admit you are lying.
>
> >Are you just trolling or trying to defame me?
>
> That you can't handle the truth is your issue to address, not
> mine.
Evidently you don't understand the concept of truth.
> Your writing made it clear you were discussion Dan and me. If you
> intended to switch topics, you went out of your way to ensure this
> wouldn't be seen.
More of the special KUNT WILLS idiocy!
> That parents must endure the absence of their children when the
> accusation is false is horrible.
> That aside, if enduring a few days or weeks without my children in
> the home ensures another child won't be abused, I would be willing to
> endure it.
Well that's pretty amazing if CPS removing your kids can stop
other kids from being abused!
> I can state with authority, have discussed the matter with
> her, that Lindsay feels the same.
Who the hell is Lindsay?
> But then we don't see children as objects as so many in the
> Anti-Child Protection camp do.
Everything in the world in an object, Kent.
> The point is your claims regarding Dan and me, and your
> inability to support your claims in any way.
I stated what I believe. To disprove it, you'd have to show that
CPS is not tyrannical by my definition, or that your suggestions
for reform would make it so. Otherwise you can't say that I
am wrong.
Andrew Usher
Kent Wills
<k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 19, 7:57 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> > >> Which is why, I suspect, the reason Dan gives the suggestions he
>> > >> does. His suggestions minimize the length of the "punishment" the
>> > >> parents may endure.
>>
>> And the length of time the children are in foster care.
>
>So you're admitting that foster care is a bad thing?
I'm not Dan, but when a child is being abused by his/her
parent/guardian, it's a good thing.
>Yet the system
>you support thinks it's better to remove kids to it based on
>unsupported allegations!
>
What system is that? Since Dan's very open about his disdain for
CPS, you can't mean that. Not honestly anyway.
Kent Wills
<k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 19, 8:20 am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> And if the home was a pig sty, as in the Lisa Watkins-grag hanson
>> >> case, the parents could clean the place up and photography the
>> >> results.
>>
>> >More evidence of your obsession with Greg.
>>
>> With your deceptive snipping away the context, it would appear as
>> such.
>
>Unlike you I don't engage in deception.
You do little else, as proved by your posts.
>
>> >Even if he were guilty
>> >of everything you imagine, it wouldn't make him wrong.
>>
>> WHAT?
>> Greg's freely admitted to various forms of abuse. Bar his having
>> lied, he offered the evidence of his guilt.
>> How, exactly, does/did his abusing a little girl who is unable to
>> defend herself from the abuse, make him right? Be specific in your
>> reply.
>
>It's called 'ad hominem'. Look it up.
>
You do love to play the avoidance game.
Now that you have that out of the way, answer the question.
Honestly.
After that, explain how Greg's admitting to the abuse equates to
an ad homonym.
Kent Wills
<k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 19, 8:18 am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> How, exactly, does Dan's criticizing CPS equate to an endorsement?
>> >> How, exactly, does my pointing out the flaws with CPS equate to an
>> >> endorsement?
>> >> Be specific in both answers.
>>
>> >First, you be specific about how you and Dan have criticised CPS.
>>
>> Avoidance noted.
>> Now that you've gotten that out of the way, please answer the
>> questions raised.
>
>As your argument relies on that premise, it's reasonable for me
>to demand support for it. You're evading as usual.
You're continued avoidance is getting boring.
Please answer the question or admit you were being deceptive.
>
>> >> >And what do they do? They exercise extra-legal authority over
>> >> >everyone's raising their children. T
>>
>> >> Please cite one time where either of us have exercised legal
>> >> authority, extra or not, over anyone else's raising of their
>> >> child(ren).
>>
>> >You know whoy 'they' above refers go.
>>
>> By the subject, "Kent Wills and Dan Sullivan apologise for
>> tyranny," you meant Dan and me.
>> Now that you played your avoidance game, again, please offer a
>> cite to back up your claim or admit it's the intentional act of
>> deception it was intended to be.
>
>What's intentional is your misinterpreting what I wrote.
Why are you lying?
>I write for
>people that have a brain and are able to figure out what pronouns
>refer to.
And, as I show above, you were referring to me and Dan.
If you meant anyone else, you chose not to indicate such.
>
>> >> If you prefer, you may admit you are lying.
>>
>> >Are you just trolling or trying to defame me?
>>
>> That you can't handle the truth is your issue to address, not
>> mine.
>
>Evidently you don't understand the concept of truth.
You consistently prove you have a strong dislike of truth.
>
>> Your writing made it clear you were discussion Dan and me. If you
>> intended to switch topics, you went out of your way to ensure this
>> wouldn't be seen.
>
>More of the special KUNT WILLS idiocy!
And I've won.
When you're reduced to trying to insult me with a term that's not
offensive, it's an accepted comment that I've beaten you.
>
>> That parents must endure the absence of their children when the
>> accusation is false is horrible.
>
>> That aside, if enduring a few days or weeks without my children in
>> the home ensures another child won't be abused, I would be willing to
>> endure it.
>
>Well that's pretty amazing if CPS removing your kids can stop
>other kids from being abused!
I could have worded that better.
Lindsay and I are willing to accept that we may have to have our
children removed unjustly to ensure those who are removed justly are.
>
>> I can state with authority, have discussed the matter with
>> her, that Lindsay feels the same.
>
>Who the hell is Lindsay?
>
Been living under a rock?
>> But then we don't see children as objects as so many in the
>> Anti-Child Protection camp do.
>
>Everything in the world in an object, Kent.
How long have you seen children as objects?
I can beat the heck out of the large rock out back, if I'm so
inclined, since it's an object and not a human, with no legal
ramification.
>
>> The point is your claims regarding Dan and me, and your
>> inability to support your claims in any way.
>
>I stated what I believe.
Support your claims regarding Dan and me.
>To disprove it, you'd have to show that
It doesn't befall me to disprove your deceptive claims about me or
Dan. If befalls you to prove them.
>CPS is not tyrannical by my definition,
Now it's CPS?
Gee, a few hours ago it was me and Dan.
Pick a lane.
>or that your suggestions
>for reform would make it so.
Ah... Earlier you claimed I support CPS. Not you take the
position I don't.
You need to pick a position and stick with it. Your jumping
around only exposes your dishonesty.
>Otherwise you can't say that I
>am wrong.
>
I can and do. Your own words, as pointed out above, prove you are
wrong.
Here's a suggestion. You may take it or leave it.
When you make a claim, stick with it. If the available evidence
shows you were/are in error and you alter your claim accordingly, be
honest enough to admit your error and the reason for your change.
Kent Wills
I suspect he knows this, but has gotten himself so entwined in
his futile attempt to defend Pangborn, he can't admit the truth. To
do so would ruin any hope he has to continue defending Pangborn.
Reality_CheckŠ
> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 22:13:41 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>>>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Andrew Usher wrote:
>>>>>>>>> That's basically the issue: that they here defend CPS, or
>>>>>>>>> refuse to criticise them, which amounts to endorsing what
>>>>>>>>> they do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "The jury returned a verdict finding Kent 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."
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your racist hate for my family just won't allow you to be
>>>>>>> honest.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're lying again, Kunt. You've offered no proof whatsoever that
>>>>>> you even have a family.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're lying, still.
>>>>
>>>> Prove it.
>>>
>>> Your own words do that so well.
>>
>> Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies!
>>
>
> I'd ask you to prove one, but since you've never been able, there's
> no reason to presume you'll suddenly be able now.
See Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies!
"You are in the Kill File. Have been for a while.
Note that I can only reply if I read someone
else's reply to you." -- Kent B Wills
Greegor
I've admitted to stuff that YOU decided was abuse.
That's QUITE different from admitting to abuse.
Greegor
BW > plan, which typically outlines the
BW > service agreement, without agreeing to it?
Please provide logical legal insight into this, Betty!
I'd like to see your explanation for this.
Greegor
> them to the Iowa Dept. of Corrections,
> as his tenative discharge date is
> rapidly approaching - 1/16/09
What kinds of things qualify as violations
in his situation?
Considering his conviction for using a MINOR,
is it legal for him to participate in a forum
about child protection, and claim to be a
school teacher?
Was there a suspended sentence they can
send him away for?
Is it a violation for him to attempt to
LIE and DENY he is the Burglary Felon?
Or deny the conviction for using a MINOR
as an accomplice?
Was the boat video a fraud?
Either it wasn't his video, in which case
he attempted to defraud, or the video
really is his in which case the boat
registration was fraudulent.
Enough for them to revoke him and
send him away?
Greegor
What's the matter, Ronald?
You only want to see what serves YOU, right? LOL
Complete LIES that serve you are OK, but
absolute TRUTH that does not is to be avoided, right?
Sorta leads to a lopsided view of
reality when you only see what you
WANT to see, doesn't it?
> "Reality_Check©" <Real...@Check.it> wrote in message
>
> news:6lvnb4F...@mid.individual.net...
>
>
>
> > Kent Wills wrote:
> >> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 18:09:25 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
> >> <Real...@Check.it> wrote:
>
> >>> Kent Wills wrote:
> >>>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:09:25 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
> >>>> <Real...@Check.it> wrote:
>
> >>>>> Andrew Usher wrote:
> >>>>>> That's basically the issue: that they here defend CPS, or refuse
> >>>>>> to criticise them, which amounts to endorsing what they do.
>
> >>>>> "The jury returned a verdict finding Kent 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."
>
> >>>> Your racist hate for my family just won't allow you to be honest.
>
> >>> You're lying again, Kunt. You've offered no proof whatsoever that
> >>> you even have a family.
>
> >> You're lying, still.
>
> > Prove it.
>
> >> If I don't have a family,
>
> > You've offered no proof whatsoever that you even have a family, Kunt.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Reality_CheckŠ
At one time he claimed to own/possess a firearm, which
is illegal under both State and Federal law for convicts like him.
He's claimed to be a school teacher, but doesn't appear in
the State licensing database. Being unlicensed, or lying to
obtain a license, would be illegal.
He's openly bragged about his trips outside the U$A. Depending
on his probation/parole conditions, those may be a violation.
The countries he claims to visit/vacation might not want nor allow
convicted child molesting felons like him, if they were aware of his
vile criminal conduct in Iowa.
He's engaged in online forgery and other computer abuses or
crimes.
He has repeatedly claimed to have orchestrated a hack into the
Iowa State Criminal database and altered/falsified official records
-- his own -- and admitted he engaged in a conspiracy to do same.
His compulsive mythomania and sociopathy strongly indicate he isn't
fit to be outside an institutional environment.
A call to Iowa Dept. of Corrections would determine what probation/parole
officer is currently in charge of his case file, what prosecutor is in
charge of
his upcomming discharge hearing, and what court/judge it would be assigned
to.
All of whom might take a strong interest in the self-described postings of
Kent Bradley Wills from Ankeny Iowa.
IOWA BOARD OF PAROLE (515) 725-5757
Interstate Compact (515) 725-5725
Investigative Services (515) 725-5740
Name Kent Bradley Wills
Offender Number 1155768
Sex M
Birth Date 01/08/1969
Age 39
Location Interstate Compact
Offense BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE
County Of Commitment Polk
Commitment Date 01/16/2004
Duration
TDD/SDD *01/16/2009
* TDD = Tentative Discharge Date
* SDD = Supervision Discharge Date
CLICK HERE TO REGISTER FOR NOTIFICATION
ON ANY CHANGES TO THIS OFFENDER'S CUSTODY STATUS
http://www.vinelink.com/servlet/SubjectSearch?siteID=16000&agency=900&offenderID=1155768
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk
Probation C Felony Polk
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 11/25/2003
Kent Wills
Firearms, plural.
Your racism just won't permit you to be honest about anything.
>which
>is illegal under both State and Federal law for convicts like him.
>
What happened when you turned me in? You made it clear you were
going to.
Was that another of your numerous lies?
>He's claimed to be a school teacher, but doesn't appear in
>the State licensing database.
You don't have access to it.
>Being unlicensed, or lying to
>obtain a license, would be illegal.
Kind of makes you wonder if my name in real life is different from
the one I use on-line, huh?
>
>He's openly bragged about his trips outside the U$A. Depending
>on his probation/parole conditions, those may be a violation.
It's possible one on probation or parole (you've claimed both for
me in this matter -- you should pick a lie and stick with it) could
get permission to travel outside the U.S. from the probation/parole
officer.
What happened when you altered the authorities about my trip to
Mexico and Belize? You can be honest. You found that no one with the
name Kent Wills living in Iowa has any more or less restriction on
travel than anyone else.
>
>The countries he claims to visit/vacation might not want nor allow
>convicted child molesting felons like him, if they were aware of his
>vile criminal conduct in Iowa.
I've never been questioned about, let alone charged with child
molestation in any form. As such, I couldn't have been convicted.
That aside, what happened when you altered the authorities about
my trips outside of the U.S.?
Be honest, if your admitted racial hate for my family will permit
it.
>
>He's engaged in online forgery and other computer abuses or
>crimes.
When? Where?
Be specific, unless your racist hate for my family is causing you
to lie, still.
>
>He has repeatedly claimed to have orchestrated a hack into the
>Iowa State Criminal database and altered/falsified official records
>-- his own -- and admitted he engaged in a conspiracy to do same.
Why, exactly, are you lying? I've never claimed, directly or
through implication, that.
>
>His compulsive mythomania and sociopathy strongly indicate he isn't
>fit to be outside an institutional environment.
You've yet to offer anything to suggest I've made up anything,
other than my nym, which I've never claimed is my name in real life.
Feel free to do that now, if you can overcome your racial hate
long enough to be honest.
>
>A call to Iowa Dept. of Corrections would determine what probation/parole
>officer is currently in charge of his case file, what prosecutor is in
>charge of
>his upcomming discharge hearing, and what court/judge it would be assigned
>to.
Free hint: A judge would be in charge of the hearing, not a
prosecutor.
>All of whom might take a strong interest in the self-described postings of
>Kent Bradley Wills from Ankeny Iowa.
As you have proved, I've not lived in Ankeny since 1998.
Of course, you think my living in Ankeny in 1998 proves I lived in
Ankeny in 2003.
Reality_CheckŠ
Here's the contact information you snipped:
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>KW > Greg's freely admitted to various forms of abuse.
>
>I've admitted to stuff that YOU decided was abuse.
>
Iowa law decided your abuses was and is abuse.
>That's QUITE different from admitting to abuse.
Not so. The law is the law.
Now please explain why you abused Lisa's daughter.
--
"I am erudite [sic] but not Buckelyesque"
Gregory Scott Hanson, inmate 1104135, wife and child abuser
Jan 22, 2008
Dragon's Girl
It's pretty simple, really, Greg.
In my state, and I'm guessing others, at each family support team
meeting everyone is given a copy of the case plan to sign.
The case plan outlines the who, what, when, where and how in the case.
At the end of the form there are columns...
The first column has typed names, including the parents, GAL,
caseworker, etc.
The second column is headed 'attended'.
The third 'Agrees With Plan'.
The fourth 'Disagrees With Plan'
The fifth, 'Signature'.
And the last 'Date'.
The only case I have ever been involved in was that of my grandson.
Regardless of the case plan, I never initialed 'Agree' or 'Disagree'.
I only signed that I was in attendance.
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
Regarding the subject:
Since I am not now, nor have I ever been on parole, the answer is
no. No amount of your deception via innuendo will alter this simple
truth.
>> If you have any complaints against
>> Kent Wills, now is the time to [forward]
>> them to the Iowa Dept. of Corrections,
>> as his tenative discharge date is
>> rapidly approaching - 1/16/09
>
>What kinds of things qualify as violations
>in his situation?
Proving you the mental defect you are, using your own posts,
wouldn't qualify for anyone.
>
>Considering his conviction for using a MINOR,
>is it legal for him to participate in a forum
>about child protection, and claim to be a
>school teacher?
Even if we accept your lie as accurate, there is nothing in Iowa
law that prohibits someone convicted of burglary from participation in
any on-line forum about child protection.
To the best of my knowledge, felons aren't allowed to be teachers
in Iowa. Since I'm still teaching (prove otherwise), well, have
someone do the math for you.
>
>Was there a suspended sentence they can
>send him away for?
Not according to the site.
>
>Is it a violation for him to attempt to
>LIE and DENY he is the Burglary Felon?
You lie about your abusing Lisa's daughter, even after you freely
admitted to the abuse.
>
>Or deny the conviction for using a MINOR
>as an accomplice?
>
>Was the boat video a fraud?
>
Looks genuine to me.
>Either it wasn't his video, in which case
>he attempted to defraud, or the video
>really is his in which case the boat
>registration was fraudulent.
As you already know, having replied to one of the posts where I
pointed this out, the registration was on the boat when we bought it.
You can see my father-in-law's arm and hand in the video. In his hand
are the stickers for the new registration.
>
>Enough for them to revoke him and
>send him away?
I'd first need to have a sentence. For that, I would need a
trial. I understand that you hold the anti-American view that those
who haven't been charged with a crime should be tried, but that's not
how it works in the U.S.
Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
alt.friends, using the very definition you posted to accuse others of
stalking you? You've refused to answer this simple question.
http://www.stalkingbehavior.com/definiti.htm
Stalking is defined as "the willful, malicious and repeated
following and harassing of another person" (Meloy, 1998).
-- Gregory Scott Hanson, inmate 1104135, wife and child abuser
posting the definition he used to accuse others of stalking him.
Message-ID: <1150922197.4...@b68g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>RVD > plonk
>
>What's the matter, Ronald?
>You only want to see what serves YOU, right? LOL
It would appear Ron is interested in truth.
Why do you buddy-up to admitted racists? Michael made it clear
he's a racist, and you and he are about as close as can be on Usenet.
Now you're friends with a guy who actually admitted he called for
me and my family to be murdered because we aren't pure white.
It's said a man can be judged by the company he keeps. You do
like to keep company with some real scum.
>
>Complete LIES that serve you are OK, but
>absolute TRUTH that does not is to be avoided, right?
Projection is a bad thing, Greg. You should stop doing it.
>
>Sorta leads to a lopsided view of
>reality when you only see what you
>WANT to see, doesn't it?
Again, projection is a bad thing.
"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, inmate 1104135, wife and child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
Kent Wills
<Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>Kent Wills wrote:
>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 22:13:41 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>
>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 21:20:03 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
>>>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 18:09:25 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
>>>>>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sat, 18 Oct 2008 11:09:25 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
>>>>>>>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Andrew Usher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> That's basically the issue: that they here defend CPS, or
>>>>>>>>>> refuse to criticise them, which amounts to endorsing what
>>>>>>>>>> they do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> "The jury returned a verdict finding Kent 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."
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Your racist hate for my family just won't allow you to be
>>>>>>>> honest.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're lying again, Kunt. You've offered no proof whatsoever that
>>>>>>> you even have a family.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're lying, still.
>>>>>
>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>
>>>> Your own words do that so well.
>>>
>>> Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies!
>>>
>>
>> I'd ask you to prove one, but since you've never been able, there's
>> no reason to presume you'll suddenly be able now.
>
>See Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies!
>
>
>"You are in the Kill File. Have been for a while.
>Note that I can only reply if I read someone
>else's reply to you." -- Kent B Wills
>
Continued lack of proof noted.
Jonezie:
>> Or you could discuss the holocaust of Native Americans by
>> the invading White Man ...
>
Deadrat:
> Sure. I for Indian or N for Native?
Jonezie:
S for Savage.
Prof. Jonez expressing his racial HATE for Native Americans.
Message-ID: <6b3i56F...@mid.individual.net>
Greegor
G > I've admitted to stuff that YOU decided was abuse.
KW > Iowa law decided your abuses was and is abuse.
BzzT! Oh wait! Betty, See anything wrong with
Kent's latest statement?
G > That's QUITE different from admitting to abuse.
KW > Not so. The law is the law.
KW > Now please explain why you abused Lisa's daughter.
What law?
I have never been tried or convicted for child abuse.
Are you going along with this convenient witch hunt, Betty?
It's convenient and expedient FOR YOU, isn't it Betty?
Your PERSONAL OPINION isn't biased! LOL
Greegor
You were also not the accused.
At least that time around.
Did a CPS agency start a case when you
hauled off and punched your teenage son in the face?
How did the little checkoff box work for you then?
How did you test your legal theory on the check boxes? LOL
Greegor
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:43:45 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
>
>
> Regarding the subject:
> Since I am not now, nor have I ever been on parole, the answer is
> no. No amount of your deception via innuendo will alter this simple
> truth.
>
> >> If you have any complaints against
> >> Kent Wills, now is the time to [forward]
> >> them to the Iowa Dept. of Corrections,
> >> as his tenative discharge date is
> >> rapidly approaching - 1/16/09
>
> >What kinds of things qualify as violations
> >in his situation?
>
> Proving you the mental defect you are, using your own posts,
> wouldn't qualify for anyone.
>
>
>
> >Considering his conviction for using a MINOR,
> >is it legal for him to participate in a forum
> >about child protection, and claim to be a
> >school teacher?
>
> Even if we accept your lie as accurate, there is nothing in Iowa
> law that prohibits someone convicted of burglary from participation in
> any on-line forum about child protection.
> To the best of my knowledge, felons aren't allowed to be teachers
> in Iowa. Since I'm still teaching (prove otherwise), well, have
> someone do the math for you.
G > Was there a suspended sentence they can
G > send him away for?
KW > Not according to the site.
Yet it does say that supervision ends January 2009,
doesn't it Kent?
But what site is it that says there is no
suspended sentence, Kent?
That would be on the statewide court docket site.
Did you check that one?
G > Is it a violation for him to attempt to
G > LIE and DENY he is the Burglary Felon?
KW > You lie about your abusing Lisa's daughter,
KW > even after you freely admitted to the abuse.
Kent Wills asserting dishonesty from me is hilarious!
I am not a felon.
G > Or deny the conviction for using a MINOR
G > as an accomplice?
G > Was the boat video a fraud?
KW > Looks genuine to me.
You didn't answer the actual question.
Wouldn't a con artist say exactly what you did?
Kent Wills
Jonezie?
>>
>>> which
>>> is illegal under both State and Federal law for convicts like him.
>>>
>>
>> What happened when you turned me in? You made it clear you were
>> going to.
>> Was that another of your numerous lies?
Jonezie?
>>
>>> He's claimed to be a school teacher, but doesn't appear in
>>> the State licensing database.
>>
>> You don't have access to it.
>>
>>> Being unlicensed, or lying to
>>> obtain a license, would be illegal.
>>
>> Kind of makes you wonder if my name in real life is different from
>> the one I use on-line, huh?
Jonezie?
>>
>>>
>>> He's openly bragged about his trips outside the U$A. Depending
>>> on his probation/parole conditions, those may be a violation.
>>
>> It's possible one on probation or parole (you've claimed both for
>> me in this matter -- you should pick a lie and stick with it) could
>> get permission to travel outside the U.S. from the probation/parole
>> officer.
>> What happened when you altered the authorities about my trip to
>> Mexico and Belize? You can be honest. You found that no one with the
>> name Kent Wills living in Iowa has any more or less restriction on
>> travel than anyone else.
>>
>>>
>>> The countries he claims to visit/vacation might not want nor allow
>>> convicted child molesting felons like him, if they were aware of his
>>> vile criminal conduct in Iowa.
>>
>> I've never been questioned about, let alone charged with child
>> molestation in any form. As such, I couldn't have been convicted.
>> That aside, what happened when you altered the authorities about
>> my trips outside of the U.S.?
>> Be honest, if your admitted racial hate for my family will permit
>> it.
Jonezie?
>>
>>>
>>> He's engaged in online forgery and other computer abuses or
>>> crimes.
>>
>> When? Where?
>> Be specific, unless your racist hate for my family is causing you
>> to lie, still.
>>
Jonezie?
>>>
>>> He has repeatedly claimed to have orchestrated a hack into the
>>> Iowa State Criminal database and altered/falsified official records
>>> -- his own -- and admitted he engaged in a conspiracy to do same.
>>
>> Why, exactly, are you lying? I've never claimed, directly or
>> through implication, that.
>>
Jonezie?
>>>
>>> His compulsive mythomania and sociopathy strongly indicate he isn't
>>> fit to be outside an institutional environment.
>>
>> You've yet to offer anything to suggest I've made up anything,
>> other than my nym, which I've never claimed is my name in real life.
>> Feel free to do that now, if you can overcome your racial hate
>> long enough to be honest.
>>
Jonezie?
>>>
>>> A call to Iowa Dept. of Corrections would determine what
>>> probation/parole officer is currently in charge of his case file,
>>> what prosecutor is in charge of
>>> his upcomming discharge hearing, and what court/judge it would be
>>> assigned to.
>>
>> Free hint: A judge would be in charge of the hearing, not a
>> prosecutor.
>>
Jonezie?
>>> All of whom might take a strong interest in the self-described
>>> postings of Kent Bradley Wills from Ankeny Iowa.
>>
>> As you have proved, I've not lived in Ankeny since 1998.
>> Of course, you think my living in Ankeny in 1998 proves I lived in
>> Ankeny in 2003.
>
>Here's the contact information you snipped:
Interesting. You snip stuff but it's acceptable. The guy you
call a race traitor does it and you get bent out of shape.
Your racist hate for my family runs very deep, huh?
From the proven racist and admitted pedophile, Prof. Jonez:
Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies !
You've claimed numerous times that it *is* you, you
lying piece of shit. [made in regards to why he claims my name in
real life is Kent Wills]
The proven racist and self-admitted pedophile proves he never
believed my name in real life is Kent Wills. Or he's been lying about
believing what he calls Rule #1.
Greegor
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:51:24 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
>
> >RVD > plonk
>
> >What's the matter, Ronald?
> >You only want to see what serves YOU, right? LOL
>
> It would appear Ron is interested in truth.
> Why do you buddy-up to admitted racists? Michael made it clear
> he's a racist, and you and he are about as close as can be on Usenet.
> Now you're friends with a guy who actually admitted he called for
> me and my family to be murdered because we aren't pure white.
> It's said a man can be judged by the company he keeps. You do
> like to keep company with some real scum.
>
>
>
> >Complete LIES that serve you are OK, but
> >absolute TRUTH that does not is to be avoided, right?
>
> Projection is a bad thing, Greg.
> You should stop doing it.
>
>
>
> >Sorta leads to a lopsided view of
> >reality when you only see what you
> >WANT to see, doesn't it?
>
> Again, projection is a bad thing.
Got a LINK to where Jonezie originally
posted the racial death threats you
keep asserting were made against you?
If you're not you, then how could that be? LOL
Reality_CheckŠ
You're lying again, Kunt. You've offered no proof that
you are a guy.
"What heterosexual male would feel insulted at being compared
to that most fascinating of the female anatomy, the vagina? None."
-- Kent Wills
> Your racist hate for my family runs very deep, huh?
You're lying again, Kunt. You've offered no proof that you
have a family.
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>KW > Greg's freely admitted to various forms of abuse.
>
>G > I've admitted to stuff that YOU decided was abuse.
>
>KW > Iowa law decided your abuses was and is abuse.
>
>BzzT! Oh wait! Betty, See anything wrong with
>Kent's latest statement?
DHS, with the benefit of law, determined you abused Lisa's
daughter.
You're just real lucky the County Attorney's office didn't chose
to charge and prosecute you, even though you hold the ANTI-American
view that those who haven't been charged should have a trial.
I believe, but don't expect to be able to prove, that the reason
you allowed the SoL to expire on your k00k s00t is because you held
the very real fear that evidence sufficient enough to warrant you
being charged and tried would surface.
>
>G > That's QUITE different from admitting to abuse.
>
>KW > Not so. The law is the law.
>KW > Now please explain why you abused Lisa's daughter.
>
>What law?
>I have never been tried or convicted for child abuse.
Andrew Cunanan was never tried. By your standards, he never
committed a single act of murder. That all available evidence shows
he did doesn't mean a thing.
Now that I've destroyed your argument once again, please explain
why you abused Lisa's daughter.
My guess is that it's because you see females as objects that are
intended solely for your abusive pleasure. If my guess is correct,
let me know. If it's wrong, tell me, and everyone else reading, what
the actual reason is.
>
>Are you going along with this convenient witch hunt, Betty?
Truth is convenient for most. It's a sad commentary that you
don't see it this way.
And since it's true, it can't be seen as a witch hunt by the more
emotionally stable readers. Your (presumably drug) damaged mind
probably can't see it that way.
>It's convenient and expedient FOR YOU, isn't it Betty?
>
Truth typically is for most. You are among the few who fail to
see it this way.
>Your PERSONAL OPINION isn't biased! LOL
If it's biased, it is so because of your admitting to abusing
Lisa's daughter in various ways.
It's certainly possible you lied when you admitted it. You really
do have the unique ability to make Pangborn look honest.
"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, inmate 1104135, wife and child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.04011...@posting.google.com>
Reality_CheckŠ
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 11:42:18 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>>>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>>>>>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Andrew Usher wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> That's basically the issue: that they here defend CPS, or
>>>>>>>>>>> refuse to criticise them, which amounts to endorsing what
>>>>>>>>>>> they do.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "The jury returned a verdict finding Kent 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."
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your racist hate for my family just won't allow you to be
>>>>>>>>> honest.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You're lying again, Kunt. You've offered no proof whatsoever
>>>>>>>> that you even have a family.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're lying, still.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your own words do that so well.
>>>>
>>>> Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies!
>>>>
>>>
>>> I'd ask you to prove one, but since you've never been able,
>>> there's no reason to presume you'll suddenly be able now.
>>
>> See Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies!
>>
>>
>> "You are in the Kill File. Have been for a while.
>> Note that I can only reply if I read someone
>> else's reply to you." -- Kent B Wills
>>
>
> Continued lack of proof noted.
>
Rule #1
Reality_CheckŠ
So the boat is now currently registered to you, eh Kunt?
The Original Demon Prince of Absurdity
>> If you have any complaints against
>> Kent Wills, now is the time to [forward] them to the Iowa Dept. of
>> Corrections, as his tenative discharge date is
>> rapidly approaching - 1/16/09
>
> What kinds of things qualify as violations in his situation?
>
> Considering his conviction for using a MINOR, is it legal for him to
> participate in a forum about child protection, and claim to be a school
> teacher?
>
> Was there a suspended sentence they can send him away for?
>
> Is it a violation for him to attempt to LIE and DENY he is the Burglary
> Felon?
Hey, if you can prove that he _is_ the "Burglary Felon", go right ahead.
Since I don't happen to believe it for one second, you'll need to work
to prove it. Alternatively, you can ignore my challenge, and be spanked,
like Eric "Reality Check" Ross. I'm comfortable, either way.
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! TM#5; COOSN-029-06-71069; Usenet Ruiner #5; Gutter Chix0r #17
Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition; Official Chung Demon
Most Hated Usenetizen of All Time #13; Top Asshole #3; Lits Slut #16
BowTie's Spuriously Accused Pedo Photographer #4
AUK Psycho & Felon #21; Parrot & Zombie #2; AUK Hate Machine Cog #19
Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18
"Computers, like cats, can operate crossdimensionally; the trick is in
getting them to do what you want."
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
Trainer of PorchMonkey4Life
http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2008
Hammer of Thor, July 2008
"They could hear the aria and whistle it" -- Yeah, poor blacks in the
late 19th/early 20th centuries sure would have gone to operas all the
time, Aggie! Message-ID:
<CLidne0n87WoigfV...@eclipse.net.uk>
http://www.kookpedia.net/index.php/Agamemnon
"RUBBISH! Italian opera makes reference to RECORDED GREEK HISTORY!
Calling with folklore is like calling the Napoleonic wars folklore or
Julius Caesar folklore.
"Greece does not have folk music and it does not have folklore." --
Clearly, Greek mythology was made up by archaeologists and
anthropologists in the past two centuries. Isn't that right, Aggie?
Message-ID: <VPudnbL2wM0RBAXV...@eclipse.net.uk>
"Folklore is a 19th Century Romanticist Art Music genre." -- Aggie re-
defines the Brothers Grimm as musicians, in Message-ID:
<RqednfZU4LiLRgrV...@eclipse.net.uk>
"Folk music is by definition Irish pop music. Specifically Irish pop
music influenced by Eastern European dance music." -- Agamemnon owes me
a head injury for that. Message-ID:
<YPednU9W26DULgzV...@eclipse.net.uk>
"Rave and Trance on technical grounds should be classified as classical
music." -- Aggie the musical expert, in Message-ID:
<AZ-dnR58vJP...@eclipse.net.uk>
"Bluegrass is African American. Actually its origin is French just like
Rap, but it has nothing to do with Folk. Folk is Irish pop music
concocted in the 50's and 60's which uses instruments that weren't
invented until the 30's." -- And rock, of course, was first made by
Greeks, as Agamemnon will assert. Message-ID:
<r7OdnREN64VSVBLV...@eclipse.net.uk>
"WRONG! The plays of Aristophanes prove that the overwhelming majority
of Athenians were straight and idiogenogamotics were ridiculed as either
being effeminate or only doing kologamosis in return for political or
financial favours. If this was not so then Aristophanes would not have
mocked the politicians in the front seats as boy fuckers (kologamosis
with young boys will illegal in ancient Athens and those engaging in it
were banned from holding elected office) or made numerous bum gags, or
brought naked girls on stage for an all male audience to represent peace
or written plays featuring female prostitutes. Hellenistic romantic
fiction such as the Aethiopica also disproves your claims that women
were only regarded as baby making machines. Menanders Dyskolos also
disproves your claims as does book 3 of Apollonius Argonougtica and
Euripides Hellen. Kolofilia was nothing more than masturbation. Just ask
yourself why it was only with a man and adolescent boy. Because it was
easier for the giver to think the receiver was a young girl than if it
was with a man the same age. He might as well have fucked a sheep or a
goat. So to get back on topic, it makes you wonder why RTD made Captain
Jack an omnisexual, read complete wanker." -- Poutso kelftis on a
frothing rage, in Message-ID:
<5rKdnXHmXv_OxAza...@eclipse.net.uk>
"I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what
happened inside this Oval Office." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.,
May 12, 2008
"6. Who is a net.giggler?" -- Bloxy's "Monkay", that's who. Message-ID:
<DC6BBA72...@demon.co.uk>
"'I find this genetic sequence all the way down the evolutionary
ladder,' he says. 'The major significance of this protein is that it may
be a communication line between the nucleus and the mitochondria.'" --
Andrew B. Chung, from
http://gtalumni.org/Publications/magazine/win91/chung.html
"Pot...kettle...so black it picks cotton." -- But Alex "Dink" Cain isn't
racist at all, oh no. Not him. Why, some of his best friends are porch
monkeys. I'll bet. Message-ID: <397FCB...@hotmail.com>
"You think I don't know this? What gives you the right to speak as if
you have authority over me? You have none. I like his use of the words
'wanton woman'. They are biblical. Maybe there is some hope for k man
after all. You? There is no hope for you at all you freak of nature. Go
back to the hole you came out of." -- Atlanta Olympiada Kane "knows"
Kadaitcha Man was referring to me, but addressed him as though he was
referring to himself, then foamed all over me, in Message-ID:
<45e1f82a$0$16335$8826...@free.teranews.com>
"No effort at all c*cksucking you, b1tch." -- At last, the Monkey-man
comes out of the closet, in MID: <aXkth.3535$QE6.1902@trnddc02>
http://www6.kingdomofloathing.com/login.php
"This is a sandwich made by a Spam Witch. You know why Spam Witches
can't starve if they're at the beach? Because they can always eat the
sand which is there." -- Spam Witch sammich, from The Kingdom of
Loathing
http://www.runescape.com/
No one expects the Fannish Inquisition!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cabal_of_the_Holy_Pretzel/join
Cabal of the Holy International Discordian Internet & Usenet Terrorist
Pretzel
"i have no need for sex; i'd rather tease you, honeybuns." -- Teh Mop
Jockey doesn't know the meaning of "TMI". MID:
<1253073.6...@unixd0rk.com>
"What are marijuana tablets?"
"When logic and proportion
Have fallen softly dead
And the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen's 'off with her head!'
Remember what the dormouse said:
'Feed your head
Feed your head
Feed your head'"
-- "White Rabbit", Jefferson Airplane
I own "James C Cracked is God!!!":
MID: <1161060410.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
"Chips on you dud, you got bugged for being near me, Viruses transmit
that way you know." -- Blooey: Master of the Autoflame. Message-ID:
<4556A926...@pharae.org> http://tinyurl.com/virusestransmit
"The nonsense screeds you compose and post to usenet lack any kind of
coherent and rational meaning whatsoever, and are composed of random
bits and pieces stolen from mythology, science fiction, religion, comic
books, etc., placed into a blender, and the switch turned to the highest
setting.
About every other screed has droppings of death threats, racial
bigotry, laughably false prophesies of gloom and doom, and inane
attempts to extort money. These bland, meaningless, pulpy messes are
then trowled into usenet; identical or nearly identical screeds are
repeated ad nauseum." -- Art Deco had to clean up bits of Warhol for
days after using the Hammer on him
"Q: How many Bush administration officials does it take to change a
light bulb?
A: None. There is no need to change anything. We made the right decision
to stick with that light bulb. People who say that it is burned out are
giving aid and encouragement to the Forces of Darkness." -- Anon.
"Outlaw amateur assassins!" -- Chiun
"Property is theft."
-- P. J. Proudhon
"Property is liberty."
-- P. J. Proudhon
"Property is impossible."
-- P. J. Proudhon
"Etymology:
Argumentum ad Septicus : argument to putrefaction. Derived from Septicum
Argumentum : putrefaction of argument.
"Septic \Sep"tic\, Septical \Sep"tic*al\
a. [L. septicus to make putrid: cf. F. septique.]
Having power to promote putrefaction. Of or relating to or
caused by putrefaction." -- Kadaitcha Man, indirectly to
Donald "Skeptic"/"Septic" Alford, in MID: <a3svh.d...@news.alt.net>
"I never fail to be amazing" -- Looney Maroon for September 2006 nominee
William Barwell's ego knows no bounds. MID:
12ggt3q...@corp.supernews.com
"Red meat won't hurt you. Fuzzy, blue-green meat will."
-- Zog the etc., in alt.discordia (correct
as needed)
"may you live to whatever age you'd like to." -- Dave Hillstrom,
in alt.discordia
"We are most nearly ourselves when we achieve the seriousness of the
child at play." -- Heraclitus
"And thats another mistake on your part. Your 'playing' games on usenet,
and I'm not playing...It has nothing to do with impressing you, it has
more to do with making sure you have the education you'll need to debate.
The debate is no fun for me if you are mentally incapable of it. I'm
giving you an opportunity to educate yourself. That's all." -- A trashy
former virus-writer turned Outer Filth doesn't know if he's playing or
working, in MID: <1159389579....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
"I am incapable of original thoughts" -- Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤ has an honest
moment, in MID: <0h59i25ejlthqeeit...@4ax.com>
"But now the end is near. Now Mark Foley comes along and is making
almost all liberal dreams come true and seriously, I'm sorry for it.
See, I believe in karma. I believe what comes around goes around and I
know full well that it's just bad juju to wish such a level of turmoil
and ill upon other humans, warmongering gay-hating maladroits or no, and
that the real path of enlightenment is paved with forgiveness and
progress and white-hot love and turning the other cheek and scotch.
"In fact, Jesus said something about that, I do believe. He said, "Knock
it off already with the warmongering and the hating of each other and
let's all get some wine and party like it's 2012." Then again, he never
saw Karl Rove stab the nation with the dull ice pick of bogus fear. He
never heard George W. Bush describe brutal war and the death of tens of
thousands as "just a comma" in world history.
"Check that. Maybe I'm not so sorry after all." -- Mark Morford,
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2006/10/11/
notes101106.DTL&nl=fix
http://tinyurl.com/kusmr
Kent Wills
<Gree...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >Considering his conviction for using a MINOR,
>> >is it legal for him to participate in a forum
>> >about child protection, and claim to be a
>> >school teacher?
>>
>> Even if we accept your lie as accurate, there is nothing in Iowa
>> law that prohibits someone convicted of burglary from participation in
>> any on-line forum about child protection.
>> To the best of my knowledge, felons aren't allowed to be teachers
>> in Iowa. Since I'm still teaching (prove otherwise), well, have
>> someone do the math for you.
No comment, Greg?
Sometimes the truth is so powerful, you must refuse to comment on
it, huh?
>
>G > Was there a suspended sentence they can
>G > send him away for?
>
>KW > Not according to the site.
>
>Yet it does say that supervision ends January 2009,
>doesn't it Kent?
The site does state such.
Your point?
>
>But what site is it that says there is no
>suspended sentence, Kent?
The site you referenced make no claim as to a suspended sentence.
>That would be on the statewide court docket site.
So a different site.
Why the deceptive claim about the other site?
>Did you check that one?
Since that's not the site you referenced, it's really a moot
point, but yes I have checked it before.
Aside from proving yourself the pathological liar you are, what is
your point?
>
>G > Is it a violation for him to attempt to
>G > LIE and DENY he is the Burglary Felon?
>
>KW > You lie about your abusing Lisa's daughter,
>KW > even after you freely admitted to the abuse.
>
>Kent Wills asserting dishonesty from me is hilarious!
I consistently prove your willful acts of deception (lies).
Heck, a few lines above I point out another.
>I am not a felon.
Have I ever claimed you are? If I have, post the MID(s) and/or
link(s) to the post(s). I can post a few where I point out there is
nothing to suggest you've been arrested for, let alone convicted of, a
felony.
Your deceptive innuendo isn't likely to impress anyone. But by
all means, continue to give me more opportunities to show you to be
the liar you are.
>
>G > Or deny the conviction for using a MINOR
>G > as an accomplice?
>
>G > Was the boat video a fraud?
>
>KW > Looks genuine to me.
>
>You didn't answer the actual question.
I did give more detail in my reply, but your inability to be
honest compelled you to snip it.
Here it is again:
[begin C&P]
>Either it wasn't his video, in which case
>he attempted to defraud, or the video
>really is his in which case the boat
>registration was fraudulent.
As you already know, having replied to one of the posts where I
pointed this out, the registration was on the boat when we bought it.
You can see my father-in-law's arm and hand in the video. In his hand
are the stickers for the new registration.
[End C&P]
Another Gregory Scott Hanson, wife and child abuser, lie is
exposed.
I should have pointed out the stickers in my FiL's hand aren't
real easy to see. If you don't know they're there, you may not notice
them.
>Wouldn't a con artist say exactly what you did?
I have no way of actually knowing. I do, however, suspect your
acts of deception are consistent with what someone with drug induced
brain damage would post.
Is that the reason for your inability to be honest? Serious
question.
It's beyond my ability to actually KNOW why you can't be honest
about anything at any time, so I have to guess that you have a mental
defect caused by drug abuse.
That my guess fits perfectly within the known facts doesn't
instantly mean it's correct. It only means it fits the known facts.
It's still possible you've have this mental defect since birth,
with no chemical involvement of any sort.
Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
alt.friends? You have never answered this simple question. It's rare
that you're able to overcome your need to be dishonest long enough to
acknowledge it's been asked.
If you can overcome your deeply rooted psychological NEED to be
dishonest, please answer the question.
Information about inmate 1104135, Gregory Scott Hanson, wife and child
abuser:
Proof that inmate 1104135, Gregory Scott Hanson doesn't think he's
bound by criminal or civil law:
Case ID Title Name DOB Role
06571 AGCR015216 STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREG SCOTT HANSON GREGORY
05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 SCSC123709 FARM BUREAU MUTUAL INS CO VS GREGORY SCOTT HANSON
HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 SCSC139229 EAGLE PROP MGT VS GREGORY HANSON & LISA WATKINS
HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 SCSC139230 EAGLE PROP MGT VS GREGORY HANSON & LISA WATKINS
HANSON GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 SCSC141447 EAGLE PROPERTY MNGT VS LISA WATKINS ET AL HANSON
GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 SCSC141448 EAGLE PROPERTY MNGT VS LISA WATKINS ET AL HANSON
GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 SMSM004543 STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREG SCOTT HANSON GREGORY
05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 SMSM008629 STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREGORY S HANSON GREGORY
05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 STCR429489 STATE OF IOWA vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON
GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571 STCR441449 STATE OF IOWA vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON
GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571CRSTCR146191 CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON
GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571CRSTCR214087 CITY OF CEDAR RAPIDS vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON
GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
06571MASTWG261061 CITY OF MARION vs HANSON, GREGORY SCOTT HANSON
GREGORY 05/22/1959 DEFENDANT
The rant inmate 1104135, Gregory Scott Hanson authored for Lisa
about how unfair it was for DHS to remove Lisa's daughter from Greg's
continued abuse:
IN THE IOWA DISTRICT COURT OF LINN COUNTY
JUVENILE DIVISION
IN THE INTEREST OF NO. JVJV-12345
CHILD A. LASTNAME
DOB: 00-00-99 MOTION TO CLARIFY
MINOR CHILD MOTION FOR RELIEF FROM
INAPPROPRIATE SERVICES
COMES NOW, Suzy Q. Mother, Pro Se, seeking relief from inappropriate
and inquisitive services.
The Iowa Department of Human Services (DHS) has IMPOSED a Service
Plan
onto us rather than allowing us ACTIVE participation in the FORMATION
of the Service Plan. We have complained about this for MOST of the
last 11 months, and have been laughed off by Judas of DHS, Deb of LSS
and ignored by Juvenile Court. Greg showed the quote from the US
DHHS Caseworker handbook to Deb, outside of our house, using the
trunk
of the car as a work surface. We have seen no sign that she passed
this information to Judas. Deb characterized this in writing as if
it was aberrant behavior and avoidance of personal issues. Judas has
been informed of this by way of SEVERAL documents, yet shown no sign
of truly understanding their significance. The Iowa DHS computer
blank FORM was apparently recently modified to make a clear statement
about this point, with boxed in text for emphasis, so it must be
important to SOMEBODY at DHS, perhaps due to a consent decree.
On January 99th, in court, I (Suzy Q. Mother) was asked by the judge
what MORE services would help, but got the "stone wall" treatment
regarding removal of inappropriate services. It clearly seemed to be
a "closed issue" with the Judge. Something is wrong with that. This
flies in the face of the concept of "Active Participation in the
Formation of Service Plan". Federal Case law says "opportunity
to object after formation is NOT a substitute for ACTIVE
participation
in the FORMATION of the Service Plan". This is a Federal
regulation and it's in the Iowa caseworker manual too.
Services DHS is attempting to IMPOSE upon our family turned out upon
further investigation to be contaminated beyond belief with putrid
INPUT. The words "fishing expedition" come to mind.
Domestic Violence Victim Counseling
Never mind that there has been no Domestic Violence in the 3 years
that Greg has been with us.
Kent Wills
<Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
[...]
>>>>>>>> You're lying, still.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Your own words do that so well.
>>>>>
>>>>> Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'd ask you to prove one, but since you've never been able,
>>>> there's no reason to presume you'll suddenly be able now.
>>>
>>> See Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies!
>>>
>>>
>>> "You are in the Kill File. Have been for a while.
>>> Note that I can only reply if I read someone
>>> else's reply to you." -- Kent B Wills
>>>
>>
>> Continued lack of proof noted.
>>
>
>
>Rule #1
>
That you're a bigot who will lie at every opportunity isn't in
dispute. You consistently prove this with every reply to me.
Reality_CheckŠ
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:58:03 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>>>>>>> You're lying, still.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your own words do that so well.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies!
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I'd ask you to prove one, but since you've never been able,
>>>>> there's no reason to presume you'll suddenly be able now.
>>>>
>>>> See Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "You are in the Kill File. Have been for a while.
>>>> Note that I can only reply if I read someone
>>>> else's reply to you." -- Kent B Wills
>>>>
>>>
>>> Continued lack of proof noted.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Rule #1
>>
>
> That you're a bigot who will lie at every opportunity isn't in
> dispute.
You're lying again, Kunt.
Kent Wills
<Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
[...]
>>> Was the boat video a fraud?
>>>
>>
>> Looks genuine to me.
>>
>>> Either it wasn't his video, in which case
>>> he attempted to defraud, or the video
>>> really is his in which case the boat
>>> registration was fraudulent.
>>
>> As you already know, having replied to one of the posts where I
>> pointed this out, the registration was on the boat when we bought it.
>> You can see my father-in-law's arm and hand in the video. In his hand
>> are the stickers for the new registration.
>
>So the boat is now currently registered to you, eh Kunt?
The corporation, actually. But unless your admitted stalking has
betrayed you, this is something you already know.
Kent Wills
<Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
[...]
>>>> Of course, you think my living in Ankeny in 1998 proves I lived
>>>> in Ankeny in 2003.
>>>
>>> Here's the contact information you snipped:
>>
>> Interesting. You snip stuff but it's acceptable. The guy you
>> call a race traitor does it and you get bent out of shape.
>
>You're lying again, Kunt. You've offered no proof that
>you are a guy.
Do you think the pictures of me look like a female?
How long have you had issues of gender confusion?
>
>"What heterosexual male would feel insulted at being compared
> to that most fascinating of the female anatomy, the vagina? None."
> -- Kent Wills
>
>
>> Your racist hate for my family runs very deep, huh?
>
>
>You're lying again, Kunt.
Prove it. Prove I've been lying about my family.
You've already admitted you can't explain why the same woman and
children appear everywhere I go on vacation.
>You've offered no proof that you
>have a family.
>
Why do you lie?
Jonezie:
>> Or you could discuss the holocaust of Native Americans by
>> the invading White Man ...
>
Deadrat:
> Sure. I for Indian or N for Native?
Jonezie:
S for Savage.
Prof. Jonez expressing his racial HATE for Native Americans.
Message-ID: <6b3i56F...@mid.individual.net>
>
>
>>
>>>
Kent Wills
Yes.
You've already seen them. You replied to some of the posts Moe
sent with the links.
Is there a specific reason you're deceptively implying you've not
seen them? Is your need to lie so great?
>
>If you're not you, then how could that be? LOL
No matter my name in real life, I use the nym Kent Wills on-line.
Further, Jonezie posted the last four digits of my phone number from
when I lived in Chicago back in the late 80's and early 90's. Since
this isn't something easily found, it's clear he actually knows my
name in real life.
I didn't care when he was threatening me. Even less concern
about Lin (she really does have a black belt and a license to carry).
I was a bit worried about his call for our son to be killed. He might
be able to hold his own against racist scum like Jonezie, but he
doesn't yet have a black belt.
Our daughter isn't yet able to defend herself. This is what
really motivated me to alter law enforcement.
BTW, your attempt to defend Jonezie's racist call for my family's
murder for not being pure white speaks volumes.
Please try and distract from your willful defense of Jonezie's
call for my family's murder because of his racism. You're going to do
so anyway, so I might as well give the appearance that I want you to
do such.
Note: If you were simply defending his right to be racist, I
would have no problem. Heck, I freely defend his right to BE racist
and express his racism (which he does often). Acting on it,
especially in the manner he did, is another matter.
--
"If you call the police, I'll knock out all of your teeth, I'll
cripple you. I may go to prison for it, but when I get out,
I'll be able to walk,but you will still be a cripple."
--Greg Hanson, in a verbal threat to his girlfriend
Kent Wills
Who is disputing "Rule Number One: Prof. Jonez is a bigot who will
lie at every opportunity."?
Certainly not you:
Me:
It's nice that you finally agree that Rule Number One: "Prof.
Jonez is a bigot who will lie at every opportunity" is valid.
Prof. Jonez/Reality Check/assorted other nyms:
It's immutable.
Reality_CheckŠ
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:00:19 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> Was the boat video a fraud?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Looks genuine to me.
>>>
>>>> Either it wasn't his video, in which case
>>>> he attempted to defraud, or the video
>>>> really is his in which case the boat
>>>> registration was fraudulent.
>>>
>>> As you already know, having replied to one of the posts where I
>>> pointed this out, the registration was on the boat when we bought
>>> it. You can see my father-in-law's arm and hand in the video. In
>>> his hand are the stickers for the new registration.
>>
>> So the boat is now currently registered to you, eh Kunt?
>
> The corporation, actually.
What "corporation" is that, eh Kunt?
> But unless your admitted stalking has
> betrayed you, this is something you already know.
Rule #1.
Reality_CheckŠ
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:44:47 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>>> Of course, you think my living in Ankeny in 1998 proves I lived
>>>>> in Ankeny in 2003.
>>>>
>>>> Here's the contact information you snipped:
>>>
>>> Interesting. You snip stuff but it's acceptable. The guy you
>>> call a race traitor does it and you get bent out of shape.
>>
>> You're lying again, Kunt. You've offered no proof that
>> you are a guy.
>
> Do you think the pictures of me look like a female?
What pictures are those, eh Kunt?
>>
>> "What heterosexual male would feel insulted at being compared
>> to that most fascinating of the female anatomy, the vagina? None."
>> -- Kent Wills
>>
>>
>>> Your racist hate for my family runs very deep, huh?
>>
>>
>> You're lying again, Kunt.
>
> Prove it. Prove I've been lying about my family.
It's your assertion Kunt, you prove that you have a family.
>> You've offered no proof that you
>> have a family.
>>
>
>>>>
Reality_CheckŠ
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:08:02 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:58:03 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
>>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> You're lying, still.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Your own words do that so well.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'd ask you to prove one, but since you've never been able,
>>>>>>> there's no reason to presume you'll suddenly be able now.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies!
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "You are in the Kill File. Have been for a while.
>>>>>> Note that I can only reply if I read someone
>>>>>> else's reply to you." -- Kent B Wills
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Continued lack of proof noted.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rule #1
>>>>
>>>
>>> That you're a bigot who will lie at every opportunity isn't in
>>> dispute.
>>
>> You're lying again, Kunt.
>>
>>
>
> Who is disputing "Rule Number One:
Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies is an immutable rule.
You still haven't provided one shred of proof that you have a family.
Reality_CheckŠ
And you've actually claimed to be Kent Bradley Wills from Iowa,
you lying piece of crap.
> Further, Jonezie posted the last four digits of my phone number from
> when I lived in Chicago back in the late 80's and early 90's.
Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies.
>Since this isn't something easily found, it's clear he actually knows my
> name in real life.
Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies.
> I didn't care when he was threatening me. Even less concern
> about Lin (she really does have a black belt and a license to carry).
Prove it, liar.
> I was a bit worried about
> his call for our son to be killed.
Prove you even have a son, liar.
> He might be able to hold his own against racist scum like
> Jonezie, but he doesn't yet have a black belt.
Prove you even have a son, liar.
> Our daughter isn't yet able to defend herself.
Prove you even have a daughter, liar.
> This is what really motivated me to alter law enforcement.
"alter" ?
Paging Dr. Freud ...
> BTW, your attempt to defend Jonezie's racist call for my family's
> murder for not being pure white speaks volumes.
Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies.
> Please try and distract from your willful defense of
> Jonezie's call for my family's murder because of his racism.
Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies.
Dragon's Girl
DFS didn't substantiate you and place you on the child abuse registry?
Dragon's Girl
I'd tell you, but like everything else that I talk about, I'm sure all
you'd be able to pull out your rear end would be mockery.
It worked, to what extent you'll never know, just like you'll never
know most of the other important issues in my case.
And...no, I never had a case opened for abuse or neglect.
Kent Wills
<Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>Kent Wills wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:08:02 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>
>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 18:58:03 -0600, "Reality_Check©"
>>>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> [...]
>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You're lying, still.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Your own words do that so well.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I'd ask you to prove one, but since you've never been able,
>>>>>>>> there's no reason to presume you'll suddenly be able now.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> See Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "You are in the Kill File. Have been for a while.
>>>>>>> Note that I can only reply if I read someone
>>>>>>> else's reply to you." -- Kent B Wills
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Continued lack of proof noted.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rule #1
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> That you're a bigot who will lie at every opportunity isn't in
>>>> dispute.
>>>
>>> You're lying again, Kunt.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Who is disputing "Rule Number One: Prof. Jonez is a bigot who will
>>lie at every opportunity."?
>> Certainly not you:
>>
>>
>>Me:
>> It's nice that you finally agree that Rule Number One: "Prof.
>> Jonez is a bigot who will lie at every opportunity" is valid.
>>
>>Prof. Jonez/Reality Check/assorted other nyms:
>> It's immutable.
>
>Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies is an immutable rule.
Yet you can't prove one. Not that you haven't been given ample
time to do so.
Have you learned that no matter how often your racism compels you
to lie, you just can't prove your lies to be true?
>
>You still haven't provided one shred of proof that you have a family.
>
Since I've proved, beyond any doubt, you can't prove a single lie
from me, I'm going to cease proving you the racist liar you are for a
while after today.
Eventually I'll find exposing your racist lies entertaining
again, but at this time, you've bored me.
Feel free to post any racist lies you wish about me, knowing
that, for a while at least, I won't expose them for the racist lies
they are.
Me:
It's nice that you finally agree that Rule Number One: "Prof.
Jonez is a bigot who will lie at every opportunity" is valid.
Prof. Jonez/Reality Check/assorted other nyms:
It's immutable.
Me:
It certainly appears so. You've done nothing to indicate you want
your bigotry to change. Given that your pathological lying is all you
have left, it's clear that will never change either.
Kent Wills
<Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>Kent Wills wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:00:19 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>
>> [...]
>>
>>>>> Was the boat video a fraud?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looks genuine to me.
>>>>
>>>>> Either it wasn't his video, in which case
>>>>> he attempted to defraud, or the video
>>>>> really is his in which case the boat
>>>>> registration was fraudulent.
>>>>
>>>> As you already know, having replied to one of the posts where I
>>>> pointed this out, the registration was on the boat when we bought
>>>> it. You can see my father-in-law's arm and hand in the video. In
>>>> his hand are the stickers for the new registration.
>>>
>>> So the boat is now currently registered to you, eh Kunt?
>>
>> The corporation, actually.
>
>What "corporation" is that, eh Kunt?
Our family corporation. But you knew that. It's been discussed
enough.
>
>> But unless your admitted stalking has
>> betrayed you, this is something you already know.
>
>Rule #1.
>
>
Prof. Jonez is a bigot who will lie at every opportunity isn't in
dispute. Not even by you.
Me:
It's nice that you finally agree that Rule Number One: "Prof.
Jonez is a bigot who will lie at every opportunity" is valid.
Prof. Jonez/Reality Check/assorted other nyms:
It's immutable.
Kent Wills
<Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>> You're lying again, Kunt. You've offered no proof that
>>> you are a guy.
>>
>> Do you think the pictures of me look like a female?
>
>What pictures are those, eh Kunt?
The pictures of me, simpleton.
>
>>>
>>> "What heterosexual male would feel insulted at being compared
>>> to that most fascinating of the female anatomy, the vagina? None."
>>> -- Kent Wills
>>>
>>>
>>>> Your racist hate for my family runs very deep, huh?
>>>
>>>
>>> You're lying again, Kunt.
>>
>> Prove it. Prove I've been lying about my family.
>
>It's your assertion Kunt, you prove that you have a family.
You made the assertion that I don't. By YOUR standards, it befalls
you to prove your claim.
BTW, I've made pictures and video available in the past. I'm
confident your stalking caused you to see them. If not, too bad for
you. I'm not giving you anything you can use to "teach Lin a lesson"
for marrying and having children with a white man.
Kent Wills
<Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
[...]
>>> If you're not you, then how could that be? LOL
>>
>> No matter my name in real life, I use the nym Kent Wills on-line.
>
>And you've actually claimed to be Kent Bradley Wills from Iowa,
>you lying piece of crap.
Liar. I've never claimed to be Kent Bradley Wills from Iowa, or
anywhere else.
Post the MID and/or Google link to just one post where I've done as
you claim. You won't since your racism has forced you to lie, still.
>
>> Further, Jonezie posted the last four digits of my phone number from
>> when I lived in Chicago back in the late 80's and early 90's.
>
>Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies.
>
Liar.
>>Since this isn't something easily found, it's clear he actually knows my
>> name in real life.
>
>Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies.
Liar.
>
>> I didn't care when he was threatening me. Even less concern
>> about Lin (she really does have a black belt and a license to carry).
>
>Prove it, liar.
Already done many months ago.
>
>> I was a bit worried about
>
>> his call for our son to be killed.
>
>Prove you even have a son, liar.
Already did.
>
>
>> He might be able to hold his own against racist scum like
>> Jonezie, but he doesn't yet have a black belt.
>
>Prove you even have a son, liar.
>
See above.
>> Our daughter isn't yet able to defend herself.
>
>Prove you even have a daughter, liar.
Already did.
>
>> This is what really motivated me to alter law enforcement.
>
>"alter" ?
>
>Paging Dr. Freud ...
And people think my spelling jokes are lame. These people are
correct, of course. My spelling jokes are lame.
It's nice to know I'm not the only one who can make lame jokes.
>
>> BTW, your attempt to defend Jonezie's racist call for my family's
>> murder for not being pure white speaks volumes.
>
>Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies.
>
According to you, it's "Prof. Jonez is a bigot who will lie at
every opportunity."
You've stated the rule about you is immutable.
>> Please try and distract from your willful defense of
>
>
>> Jonezie's call for my family's murder because of his racism.
>
>Rule #1 [...]
According to you, the rule is Prof. Jonez is a bigot who will lie
at every opportunity. You're so convinced of the accuracy of this
rule, you've declared it to be immutable.
Kent Wills
Technically they didn't. It was DHS.
A matter of semantics, I know, but Greg is so desperate he'll
pounce on anything to distract from the truth that DHS, with the
benefit of law, found he did abuse Lisa's little girl.
--
Do not meddle in the affairs of Dragons...
for thou art crunchy and taste good with ketchup.
Reality_CheckŠ
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:10:49 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>> If you're not you, then how could that be? LOL
>>>
>>> No matter my name in real life, I use the nym Kent Wills on-line.
>>
>> And you've actually claimed to be Kent Bradley Wills from Iowa,
>> you lying piece of crap.
>
> Liar. I've never claimed to be Kent Bradley Wills from Iowa, or
> anywhere else.
You're lying again you lying piece of shit.
>
>>
>>> Further, Jonezie posted the last four digits of my phone number from
>>> when I lived in Chicago back in the late 80's and early 90's.
>>
>> Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies.
>>
>
> Liar.
Rule #1.
>
>>> Since this isn't something easily found, it's clear he actually
>>> knows my name in real life.
>>
>> Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies.
>
> Liar.
Rule #1.
>
>>
>>> I didn't care when he was threatening me. Even less concern
>>> about Lin (she really does have a black belt and a license to
>>> carry).
>>
>> Prove it, liar.
>
> Already done many months ago.
Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies!
>>
>>> I was a bit worried about
>>
>>> his call for our son to be killed.
>>
>> Prove you even have a son, liar.
>
> Already did.
Rule #1.
>
>>
>>
>>> He might be able to hold his own against racist scum like
>>> Jonezie, but he doesn't yet have a black belt.
>>
>> Prove you even have a son, liar.
>>
>
> See above.
>
>>> Our daughter isn't yet able to defend herself.
>>
>> Prove you even have a daughter, liar.
>
> Already did.
You're lying again, Kunt.
>
>>
>>> This is what really motivated me to alter law enforcement.
>>
>> "alter" ?
>>
>> Paging Dr. Freud ...
>
> And people think my spelling jokes are lame. These people are
> correct, of course. My spelling jokes are lame.
> It's nice to know I'm not the only one who can make lame jokes.
>
>>
>>> BTW, your attempt to defend Jonezie's racist call for my
>>> family's murder for not being pure white speaks volumes.
>>
>> Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies.
>>
>
> According to
Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies.
>
>>> Please try and distract from your willful defense of
>>
>>
>>> Jonezie's call for my family's murder because of his racism.
>>
>> Rule #1 [...]
>
> According to
Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies.
Reality_CheckŠ
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:30:47 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>>>> You're lying again, Kunt. You've offered no proof that
>>>> you are a guy.
>>>
>>> Do you think the pictures of me look like a female?
>>
>> What pictures are those, eh Kunt?
>
> The pictures of me, simpleton.
Prove it, liar.
>
>>
>>>>
>>>> "What heterosexual male would feel insulted at being compared
>>>> to that most fascinating of the female anatomy, the vagina? None."
>>>> -- Kent Wills
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Your racist hate for my family runs very deep, huh?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're lying again, Kunt.
>>>
>>> Prove it. Prove I've been lying about my family.
>>
>> It's your assertion Kunt, you prove that you have a family.
>
> You made the assertion that I don't.
Your failure to prove you have a family is noted.
Reality_CheckŠ
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 20:28:42 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 19:00:19 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
>>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>
>>> [...]
>>>
>>>>>> Was the boat video a fraud?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Looks genuine to me.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Either it wasn't his video, in which case
>>>>>> he attempted to defraud, or the video
>>>>>> really is his in which case the boat
>>>>>> registration was fraudulent.
>>>>>
>>>>> As you already know, having replied to one of the posts where I
>>>>> pointed this out, the registration was on the boat when we bought
>>>>> it. You can see my father-in-law's arm and hand in the video. In
>>>>> his hand are the stickers for the new registration.
>>>>
>>>> So the boat is now currently registered to you, eh Kunt?
>>>
>>> The corporation, actually.
>>
>> What "corporation" is that, eh Kunt?
>
> Our family corporation. But you knew that.
You're lying again, Kunt.
Reality_CheckŠ
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 21:02:00 -0600, "Reality_CheckŠ"
> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>>>> <Rea...@Check.it> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> [...]
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're lying, still.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Prove it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Your own words do that so well.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'd ask you to prove one, but since you've never been able,
>>>>>>>>> there's no reason to presume you'll suddenly be able now.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> See Rule #1 = Kent Wills ALWAYS Lies!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> "You are in the Kill File. Have been for a while.
>>>>>>>> Note that I can only reply if I read someone
>>>>>>>> else's reply to you." -- Kent B Wills
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Continued lack of proof noted.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rule #1
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> That you're a bigot who will lie at every opportunity isn't in
>>>>> dispute.
>>>>
>>>> You're lying again, Kunt.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>
>
> Yet you can't prove one. Not that you haven't been given ample
> time to do so.
> Have you learned that no matter how often your racism compels you
> to lie, you just can't prove your lies to be true?
>
>>
>> You still haven't provided one shred of proof that you have a family.
>>
>
> Since I've proved, beyond any doubt, you can't prove a single lie
> from me, I'm going to cease proving you the racist liar you are for a
> while after today.
"You are in the Kill File. Have been for a while.
Note that I can only reply if I read someone
else's reply to you." -- Kent B Wills
> Eventually I'll find exposing your racist lies entertaining
> again, but at this time, you've bored me.
"You are in the Kill File. Have been for a while.
krp
"The Original Demon Prince of Absurdity"
<absurd_numb...@hell.everyposehasits.corn> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.10.20....@lucifer.the.great.beast.666.or.is.it.616...
> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:43:45 -0700, Greegor did the cha-cha, and screamed:
>
>>> If you have any complaints against
>>> Kent Wills, now is the time to [forward] them to the Iowa Dept. of
>>> Corrections, as his tenative discharge date is
>>> rapidly approaching - 1/16/09
>>
>> What kinds of things qualify as violations in his situation?
>>
>> Considering his conviction for using a MINOR, is it legal for him to
>> participate in a forum about child protection, and claim to be a school
>> teacher?
>>
>> Was there a suspended sentence they can send him away for?
>>
>> Is it a violation for him to attempt to LIE and DENY he is the Burglary
>> Felon?
>
> Hey, if you can prove that he _is_ the "Burglary Felon", go right ahead.
> Since I don't happen to believe it for one second, you'll need to work
> to prove it. Alternatively, you can ignore my challenge, and be spanked,
You don't? Let's see, how MANY Kent Bradley Wills with the EXACT SAME
BIRTHDATE live in the same small town in Iowa?
Thousands maybe? Millions?
krp
"Dragon's Girl" <betty...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f2ef56a9-25f4-4927...@p59g2000hsd.googlegroups.com...
> >> >That's basically the issue: that they here defend CPS, or refuse to
> >> >criticise them, which amounts to endorsing what they do.
>
> >> How, exactly, does Dan's criticizing CPS equate to an endorsement?
> >> How, exactly, does my pointing out the flaws with CPS equate to an
> >> endorsement?
> >> Be specific in both answers.
>
> > First, you be specific about how you and Dan have criticised CPS.
>
> >> >And what do they do? They exercise extra-legal authority over
> >> >everyone's raising their children. T
>
> >> Please cite one time where either of us have exercised legal
> >> authority, extra or not, over anyone else's raising of their
> >> child(ren).
>
> > You know whoy 'they' above refers go. Don't play fucking games.
>
> >> If you prefer, you may admit you are lying.
>
> > Are you just trolling or trying to defame me?
>
> >> >they normally
> >> >seek to avoid it as much as they seek to avoid jail.
>
> >> Which is why, I suspect, the reason Dan gives the suggestions he
> >> does. His suggestions minimize the length of the "punishment" the
> >> parents may endure.
>
> (Those "suggestions" *ARE* in fact the unauthorized PRACTICE OF LAW. It is
> giving "legal advice" Wills is hoping that Polish semantics work in a
> court
> of law. Which is why his appeal did so well. <LOUD COUGH>
>
> > The problem is that they have to endure it at all. But that's
> > perfectly OK with you, right? After all, it will never happen
> > to you!
>
> The problem, Andy, is that by knuckling under to CPS and doing their
> "performance agreements" you are AGREEING to their sovereignty over your
> family FOREVER! So even if ATTORNEY SULLIVAN'S "legal advice" works in the
> short term, in the long term you run a high RISK that the bastards will be
> back in your livingroom. ONE SUBSTANTIAL THING HAS CHANGED..............
> Following ATTORNEY SULLIVAN'S legal advice, when they come BACK, they no
> longer need a warrant! (Read the fine print on those agreements that allow
> "unannounced inspections" etc.)
>
> I might consider that Sullivan, as he dispenses this LEGAL ADVICE is
> just incredibly stupid, but I don't think so. I think he's a clever M-F'r
> and knows EXACTLY what he is doing. SELLING acceptance of the performance
> agreements. He does that on a fairly frequent basis and makes strong
> arguments for doing EXACTLY what CPS tells you to do. He can show cases
> where people got their kids back. HOWEVER he will NOT tell you about when
> they LOST them again and often PERMANENTLY by taking his LEGAL ADVICE (or
> play Polish semantics and call it "SUGGESTIONS.")
>
> Bullshit, Andy, remains putrid bullshit no matter how much Febreeze you
> pour on it!
< Did you know that you can sign a case plan, which typically outlines
< the service agreement, without agreeing to it?
Betty you have never been suggested as a centerfold for Playboy OR
membership in MENSA. You and your FAKE LAWYER buddy need to look up the
legal term "sovereignty!" Then do some read hard studying on American legal
history and MAYBE if your IQ is double what I estimate it to be, you will
figure out how it applies to ATTORNEY SULLIVAN'S legal strategy!
krp
"Dan Sullivan" <dsul...@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:02a7d5f4-dc35-4520...@m3g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 18, 10:16 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
> pornbag, what would you recommend the parents do if their children
> were removed because of a false allegation of CAN?
< pornbag, what would you recommend the parents do if their children
< were removed because of a false allegation of CAN?
Locke din a time loop Danny? Talk to yourself much as you give BAD LEGAL
ADVICE? Don't expect ME to play USENET LAWYER too!
krp
> >> >That's basically the issue: that they here defend CPS, or refuse to
> >> >criticise them, which amounts to endorsing what they do.
>
> >> How, exactly, does Dan's criticizing CPS equate to an endorsement?
> >> How, exactly, does my pointing out the flaws with CPS equate to an
> >> endorsement?
> >> Be specific in both answers.
>
> > First, you be specific about how you and Dan have criticised CPS.
< You can read my criticism of CPS in the asCPS archives.
REALLY? Most everyone seems to MISS them.
> >> >And what do they do? They exercise extra-legal authority over
> >> >everyone's raising their children. T
>
> >> Please cite one time where either of us have exercised legal
> >> authority, extra or not, over anyone else's raising of their
> >> child(ren).
>
> > You know whoy 'they' above refers go. Don't play fucking games.
>
> >> If you prefer, you may admit you are lying.
>
> > Are you just trolling or trying to defame me?
>
> >> >they normally
> >> >seek to avoid it as much as they seek to avoid jail.
>
> >> Which is why, I suspect, the reason Dan gives the suggestions he
> >> does. His suggestions minimize the length of the "punishment" the
> >> parents may endure.
< And the length of time the children are in foster care.
> (Those "suggestions" *ARE* in fact the unauthorized PRACTICE OF LAW. It is
> giving "legal advice"
< Is it "legal advice" to suggest to a parent that they should take a
parenting course before they are Court ordered to do so?
Yes Danny - in the ocntext of a LEGAL issue - you can try to PLAY with
words any way you want, that doesn't change that you ARE practicing law
without a licence and giving BAD LEGAL ADVICE. Yiu try to call it
"suggestions" but you do it in a fair air of EXPERTISE.
> > The problem is that they have to endure it at all. But that's
> > perfectly OK with you, right? After all, it will never happen
> > to you!
>
> The problem, Andy, is that by knuckling under to CPS and doing their
> "performance agreements" you are AGREEING to their sovereignty over your
> family FOREVER!
< I suggest the parents do what's necessary and appropriate before the Court
orders the services.
THAT Danny is practicing LAW without a license.
krp
On Oct 19, 6:09 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Oct 18, 6:16 am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
<<<snip>>>
> > Which is why, I suspect, the reason Dan gives the suggestions he
> > does. His suggestions minimize the length of the "punishment" the
> > parents may endure.
>
> The problem is that they have to endure it at all. But that's
> perfectly OK with you, right?
ADMISSION OF PRACTICE OF LAW
< It's not OK with me and that's why I help get the children back to their
parents in the "SHORT TERM."
BAD legal advice from a FAKE Usenet lawyer!!!
krp
On Oct 19, 1:20 pm, Greegor <Greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
> BW > Did you know that you can sign a case
> BW > plan, which typically outlines the
> BW > service agreement, without agreeing to it?
>
> Please provide logical legal insight into this, Betty!
> I'd like to see your explanation for this.
It's pretty simple, really, Greg.
In my state, and I'm guessing others, at each family support team
meeting everyone is given a copy of the case plan to sign.
The case plan outlines the who, what, when, where and how in the case.
At the end of the form there are columns...
The first column has typed names, including the parents, GAL,
Betty what is the LEGAL effect of signing the plan? Let's assume the parent
is actually INNOCENT of the allegations.
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
I didn't ask for legal advice.
I asked what you would recommend.
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:e1ea65ea-84c1-4b66...@x41g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > >> >That's basically the issue: that they here defend CPS, or refuse to
> > >> >criticise them, which amounts to endorsing what they do.
>
> > >> How, exactly, does Dan's criticizing CPS equate to an endorsement?
> > >> How, exactly, does my pointing out the flaws with CPS equate to an
> > >> endorsement?
> > >> Be specific in both answers.
>
> > > First, you be specific about how you and Dan have criticised CPS.
>
> < You can read my criticism of CPS in the asCPS archives.
>
> REALLY? Most everyone seems to MISS them.
Only the ones that don't look for them.
> > >> >And what do they do? They exercise extra-legal authority over
> > >> >everyone's raising their children. T
>
> > >> Please cite one time where either of us have exercised legal
> > >> authority, extra or not, over anyone else's raising of their
> > >> child(ren).
>
> > > You know whoy 'they' above refers go. Don't play fucking games.
>
> > >> If you prefer, you may admit you are lying.
>
> > > Are you just trolling or trying to defame me?
>
> > >> >they normally
> > >> >seek to avoid it as much as they seek to avoid jail.
>
> > >> Which is why, I suspect, the reason Dan gives the suggestions he
> > >> does. His suggestions minimize the length of the "punishment" the
> > >> parents may endure.
>
> < And the length of time the children are in foster care.
>
> > (Those "suggestions" *ARE* in fact the unauthorized PRACTICE OF LAW. It is
> > giving "legal advice"
Sorry, you're wrong, pornbag.
> < Is it "legal advice" to suggest to a parent that they should take a
> parenting course before they are Court ordered to do so?
>
> Yes Danny - in the ocntext of a LEGAL issue -
Parenting classes aren't a legal issue.
Neither are alcohol counseling or drug counseling.
> you can try to PLAY with
> words any way you want, that doesn't change that you ARE practicing law
> without a licence and giving BAD LEGAL ADVICE.
I don't give legal advice.
> Yiu try to call it
> "suggestions" but you do it in a fair air of EXPERTISE.
An "air of expertise" doesn't make my suggestions legal advice.
> > > The problem is that they have to endure it at all. But that's
> > > perfectly OK with you, right? After all, it will never happen
> > > to you!
>
> > The problem, Andy, is that by knuckling under to CPS and doing their
> > "performance agreements" you are AGREEING to their sovereignty over your
> > family FOREVER!
>
> < I suggest the parents do what's necessary and appropriate before the Court
> orders the services.
>
> THAT Danny is practicing LAW without a license.
No, it isn't.
Legal advice is the giving of a formal opinion regarding the substance
or procedure of the law by an officer of the court.
I don't do that.
If someone is cited for violating a local code that says their house
must be in a certain level of condition and their lawn must be mowed,
and I advise them to paint their house and mow their lawn before they
appear in front of the Judge, am I giving legal advice?
If I tell someone to put a quarter into a parking meter before they
get a ticket for an expired meter, am I giving legal advice?
If someone is going in front of a Judge because they weren't properly
homeschooling their children and I suggest they enrole their children
in public school before they go to court, am I giving legal advice?
Dan Sullivan
> "Dan Sullivan" <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote in message
>
> news:8d25ebc8-9576-43b8...@l62g2000hse.googlegroups.com...
> On Oct 19, 6:09 am, Andrew Usher <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 18, 6:16 am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> <<<snip>>>
>
> > > Which is why, I suspect, the reason Dan gives the suggestions he
> > > does. His suggestions minimize the length of the "punishment" the
> > > parents may endure.
>
> > The problem is that they have to endure it at all. But that's
> > perfectly OK with you, right?
>
> ADMISSION OF PRACTICE OF LAW
What is?
> < It's not OK with me and that's why I help get the children back to their
> parents in the "SHORT TERM."
>
> BAD legal advice from a FAKE Usenet lawyer!!!
Explain how what I suggest is legal advice.
And why it's "BAD" to get children back from foster care in the "SHORT
TERM."
Andrew Usher
> > < Is it "legal advice" to suggest to a parent that they should take a
> > parenting course before they are Court ordered to do so?
>
> > Yes Danny - in the ocntext of a LEGAL issue -
>
> Parenting classes aren't a legal issue.
>
> Neither are alcohol counseling or drug counseling.
Now this is disingenous. CPS is a law-enforcement agency,
so anything to do with them can be considered a legal issue.
Andrew Usher
Andrew Usher
> >Unlike you I don't engage in deception.
>
> You do little else, as proved by your posts.
Only in Willsworld.
> >> >Even if he were guilty
> >> >of everything you imagine, it wouldn't make him wrong.
>
> >> WHAT?
> >> Greg's freely admitted to various forms of abuse. Bar his having
> >> lied, he offered the evidence of his guilt.
> >> How, exactly, does/did his abusing a little girl who is unable to
> >> defend herself from the abuse, make him right? Be specific in your
> >> reply.
>
> >It's called 'ad hominem'. Look it up.
>
> You do love to play the avoidance game.
> Now that you have that out of the way, answer the question.
> Honestly.
> After that, explain how Greg's admitting to the abuse equates to
> an ad homonym.
Logic isn't your strong suit, is it? The definition of 'ad hominem'
(not 'ad homonym') is claiming that the arguer's personal faults
discredit the argument he supports. That's exactly what you
are doing.
Andrew Usher
krp
Same difference dipshit. I leave to YOU the practice of law on Usenet. The
MALPRACTICE of law with HORRID LEGAL ADVICE.
krp
"Andrew Usher" <k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a5e5f8d2-870e-4bff...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
True, Danny would have us think that CPS and the Texaco station on the
corner are the SAME thing!
Dan Sullivan
> On Oct 20, 3:23 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> > > < Is it "legal advice" to suggest to a parent that they should take a
> > > parenting course before they are Court ordered to do so?
>
> > > Yes Danny - in the ocntext of a LEGAL issue -
>
> > Parenting classes aren't a legal issue.
>
> > Neither are alcohol counseling or drug counseling.
>
> Now this is disingenous. CPS is a law-enforcement agency,
Post the proof that CPS is a law enforcement agency.
> so anything to do with them can be considered a legal issue.
Anything?
:- ))))))))
> Andrew Usher
Dan Sullivan
> "Andrew Usher" <k_over_hb...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:a5e5f8d2-870e-4bff...@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> > On Oct 20, 3:23 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
> >> > < Is it "legal advice" to suggest to a parent that they should take a
> >> > parenting course before they are Court ordered to do so?
>
> >> > Yes Danny - in the ocntext of a LEGAL issue -
>
> >> Parenting classes aren't a legal issue.
>
> >> Neither are alcohol counseling or drug counseling.
>
> > Now this is disingenous. CPS is a law-enforcement agency,
> > so anything to do with them can be considered a legal issue.
>
> True,
You agree with Andy that CPS is a law enforcement agency?
Post the proof that CPS is a law enforcement agency.
And the proof that "anything to do with them can be considered a legal
issue."
> Danny would have us think that CPS and the Texaco station on the
> corner are the SAME thing!
No, I wouldn't.
The people who work at the Texaco station are responsible if they ruin
your car.
The people who work at CPS aren't held responsible if they ruin your
family.
Reality_CheckŠ
> "Reality_CheckŠ" wrote:
>> Kent Wills wrote:
>>> "Reality_CheckŠ" wrote:
>>>> Kent Wills wrote:
==========================================
>>>> IOWA BOARD OF PAROLE (515) 725-5757
>>>>
>>>> Interstate Compact (515) 725-5725
>>>>
>>>> Investigative Services (515) 725-5740
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Name Kent Bradley Wills
>>>> Offender Number 1155768
>>>> Sex M
>>>> Birth Date 01/08/1969
>>>> Age 39
>>>> Location Interstate Compact
>>>> Offense BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE
>>>> County Of Commitment Polk
>>>> Commitment Date 01/16/2004
>>>> Duration
>>>> TDD/SDD *01/16/2009
>>>>
>>>> * TDD = Tentative Discharge Date
>>>> * SDD = Supervision Discharge Date
>>>>
>>>> CLICK HERE TO REGISTER FOR NOTIFICATION
>>>> ON ANY CHANGES TO THIS OFFENDER'S CUSTODY STATUS
>>>> http://www.vinelink.com/servlet/SubjectSearch?siteID=16000&agency=900&offenderID=1155768
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
>>>> Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk
>>>> Probation C Felony Polk
>>>>
>>>> Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
>>>> Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 11/25/2003
>>>>
>>>> "The jury returned a verdict finding Kent 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."
Kent Wills
[...]
>>> Is it a violation for him to attempt to LIE and DENY he is the Burglary
>>> Felon?
>>
>> Hey, if you can prove that he _is_ the "Burglary Felon", go right ahead.
>> Since I don't happen to believe it for one second, you'll need to work
>> to prove it. Alternatively, you can ignore my challenge, and be spanked,
>
>You don't? Let's see, how MANY Kent Bradley Wills with the EXACT SAME
>BIRTHDATE live in the same small town in Iowa?
>Thousands maybe? Millions?
Prove my name is Kent Bradley Wills in real life.
FYI: You don't know my birthdate. Also, I don't live in a small
town.
From:
"Kenneth R. Pangborn, MS" <pang...@a-team.org>
James Giglio wrote:
> "Exhibit 23" makes no sense. Apparently, my name is on it, along with
> Michelle Deveraux and Chris Barden. Can anybody explain?
>
I feel so hurt. Diana doesn't even name me. Doesn't she know how
important I am?
Message-ID:<4891B76D...@a-team.org>
Kent Wills
<k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 20, 3:23 am, Dan Sullivan <dsull...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> > < Is it "legal advice" to suggest to a parent that they should take a
>> > parenting course before they are Court ordered to do so?
>>
>> > Yes Danny - in the ocntext of a LEGAL issue -
>>
>> Parenting classes aren't a legal issue.
>>
>> Neither are alcohol counseling or drug counseling.
>
>Now this is disingenous. CPS is a law-enforcement agency,
Cite?
>so anything to do with them can be considered a legal issue.
>
Only if you desperately need it to be.
--
"Hail imp," shouted Vlad, the Imp Hailer.
Kent Wills
That's a commentary on his own actions. Outside of your drunken
stupors, it's not legal advice of any sort.
Me:
>> Outside of your drunken stupor, and the mental illness you have
>> admitted it caused, I'm not a justice.
Kenneth Robert Pangborn:
>NO SHIT SHERLOCK!
Kenneth Robert Pangborn, admitting he's an alcoholic.
See Message-ID: <kjsf449973e8lmqj9...@4ax.com>
Kent Wills
<k_over...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Oct 19, 10:24 am, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> >Unlike you I don't engage in deception.
>>
>> You do little else, as proved by your posts.
>
>Only in Willsworld.
It's nice that you consider the whole of Usenet to be Willsworld,
but I think you'll find few share your view. I certainly don't.
>
>> >> >Even if he were guilty
>> >> >of everything you imagine, it wouldn't make him wrong.
>>
>> >> WHAT?
>> >> Greg's freely admitted to various forms of abuse. Bar his having
>> >> lied, he offered the evidence of his guilt.
>> >> How, exactly, does/did his abusing a little girl who is unable to
>> >> defend herself from the abuse, make him right? Be specific in your
>> >> reply.
>>
>> >It's called 'ad hominem'. Look it up.
>>
>> You do love to play the avoidance game.
>> Now that you have that out of the way, answer the question.
>> Honestly.
>> After that, explain how Greg's admitting to the abuse equates to
>> an ad homonym.
>
>Logic isn't your strong suit, is it? The definition of 'ad hominem'
>(not 'ad homonym') is claiming that the arguer's personal faults
>discredit the argument he supports. That's exactly what you
>are doing.
>
You've failed to explain how Greg's admitting to the abuse equates
to an ad hominem.
You've also failed to explain how his abusing a little girl who
couldn't defend herself makes him right.
Please do so now, unless, of course, you've been caught in
another act of deception.
--
"Excuse me. Have you seen a blowfish driving a sports car?"
"Bloody Torchwood!"
The Original Demon Prince of Absurdity
> "The Original Demon Prince of Absurdity" wrote...
>> On Sun, 19 Oct 2008 12:43:45 -0700, Greegor did the cha-cha, and
>> screamed:
>>
>>>> If you have any complaints against
>>>> Kent Wills, now is the time to [forward] them to the Iowa Dept. of
>>>> Corrections, as his tenative discharge date is rapidly approaching -
>>>> 1/16/09
>>>
>>> What kinds of things qualify as violations in his situation?
>>>
>>> Considering his conviction for using a MINOR, is it legal for him to
>>> participate in a forum about child protection, and claim to be a school
>>> teacher?
>>>
>>> Was there a suspended sentence they can send him away for?
>>>
>>> Is it a violation for him to attempt to LIE and DENY he is the Burglary
>>> Felon?
>>
>> Hey, if you can prove that he _is_ the "Burglary Felon", go right ahead.
>> Since I don't happen to believe it for one second, you'll need to work
>> to prove it. Alternatively, you can ignore my challenge, and be spanked,
>
> You don't? Let's see, how MANY Kent Bradley Wills with the EXACT SAME
> BIRTHDATE live in the same small town in Iowa? Thousands maybe? Millions?
So, does that mean you have proof that "Kent Bradley Wills" is posting
to usenet as "Kent Wills" <comp...@gmail.com>?
--
________________________________________________________________________
Hail Eris! TM#5; COOSN-029-06-71069; Usenet Ruiner #5; Gutter Chix0r #17
Cardinal Snarky of the Fannish Inquisition; Official Chung Demon
Most Hated Usenetizen of All Time #13; Top Asshole #3; Lits Slut #16
BowTie's Spuriously Accused Pedo Photographer #4
AUK Psycho & Felon #21; Parrot & Zombie #2; AUK Hate Machine Cog #19
Anonymous Psycho Criminal #18
"Computers, like cats, can operate crossdimensionally; the trick is in
getting them to do what you want."
Barbara Woodhouse Memorial Dog Whistle
Trainer of PorchMonkey4Life
http://www.screedbomb.info/porchie/
Pierre Salinger Memorial Hook, Line & Sinker, June 2008
Hammer of Thor, July 2008
"They could hear the aria and whistle it" -- Yeah, poor blacks in the
late 19th/early 20th centuries sure would have gone to operas all the
time, Aggie! Message-ID:
<CLidne0n87WoigfV...@eclipse.net.uk>
http://www.kookpedia.net/index.php/Agamemnon
"RUBBISH! Italian opera makes reference to RECORDED GREEK HISTORY!
Calling with folklore is like calling the Napoleonic wars folklore or
Julius Caesar folklore.
"Greece does not have folk music and it does not have folklore." --
Clearly, Greek mythology was made up by archaeologists and
anthropologists in the past two centuries. Isn't that right, Aggie?
Message-ID: <VPudnbL2wM0RBAXV...@eclipse.net.uk>
"Folklore is a 19th Century Romanticist Art Music genre." -- Aggie re-
defines the Brothers Grimm as musicians, in Message-ID:
<RqednfZU4LiLRgrV...@eclipse.net.uk>
"Folk music is by definition Irish pop music. Specifically Irish pop
music influenced by Eastern European dance music." -- Agamemnon owes me
a head injury for that. Message-ID:
<YPednU9W26DULgzV...@eclipse.net.uk>
"Rave and Trance on technical grounds should be classified as classical
music." -- Aggie the musical expert, in Message-ID:
<AZ-dnR58vJP...@eclipse.net.uk>
"Bluegrass is African American. Actually its origin is French just like
Rap, but it has nothing to do with Folk. Folk is Irish pop music
concocted in the 50's and 60's which uses instruments that weren't
invented until the 30's." -- And rock, of course, was first made by
Greeks, as Agamemnon will assert. Message-ID:
<r7OdnREN64VSVBLV...@eclipse.net.uk>
"WRONG! The plays of Aristophanes prove that the overwhelming majority
of Athenians were straight and idiogenogamotics were ridiculed as either
being effeminate or only doing kologamosis in return for political or
financial favours. If this was not so then Aristophanes would not have
mocked the politicians in the front seats as boy fuckers (kologamosis
with young boys will illegal in ancient Athens and those engaging in it
were banned from holding elected office) or made numerous bum gags, or
brought naked girls on stage for an all male audience to represent peace
or written plays featuring female prostitutes. Hellenistic romantic
fiction such as the Aethiopica also disproves your claims that women
were only regarded as baby making machines. Menanders Dyskolos also
disproves your claims as does book 3 of Apollonius Argonougtica and
Euripides Hellen. Kolofilia was nothing more than masturbation. Just ask
yourself why it was only with a man and adolescent boy. Because it was
easier for the giver to think the receiver was a young girl than if it
was with a man the same age. He might as well have fucked a sheep or a
goat. So to get back on topic, it makes you wonder why RTD made Captain
Jack an omnisexual, read complete wanker." -- Poutso kelftis on a
frothing rage, in Message-ID:
<5rKdnXHmXv_OxAza...@eclipse.net.uk>
"I'll be long gone before some smart person ever figures out what
happened inside this Oval Office." --George W. Bush, Washington, D.C.,
May 12, 2008
"6. Who is a net.giggler?" -- Bloxy's "Monkay", that's who. Message-ID:
<DC6BBA72...@demon.co.uk>
"'I find this genetic sequence all the way down the evolutionary
ladder,' he says. 'The major significance of this protein is that it may
be a communication line between the nucleus and the mitochondria.'" --
Andrew B. Chung, from
http://gtalumni.org/Publications/magazine/win91/chung.html
"Pot...kettle...so black it picks cotton." -- But Alex "Dink" Cain isn't
racist at all, oh no. Not him. Why, some of his best friends are porch
monkeys. I'll bet. Message-ID: <397FCB...@hotmail.com>
"You think I don't know this? What gives you the right to speak as if
you have authority over me? You have none. I like his use of the words
'wanton woman'. They are biblical. Maybe there is some hope for k man
after all. You? There is no hope for you at all you freak of nature. Go
back to the hole you came out of." -- Atlanta Olympiada Kane "knows"
Kadaitcha Man was referring to me, but addressed him as though he was
referring to himself, then foamed all over me, in Message-ID:
<45e1f82a$0$16335$8826...@free.teranews.com>
"No effort at all c*cksucking you, b1tch." -- At last, the Monkey-man
comes out of the closet, in MID: <aXkth.3535$QE6.1902@trnddc02>
http://www6.kingdomofloathing.com/login.php
"This is a sandwich made by a Spam Witch. You know why Spam Witches
can't starve if they're at the beach? Because they can always eat the
sand which is there." -- Spam Witch sammich, from The Kingdom of
Loathing
http://www.runescape.com/
No one expects the Fannish Inquisition!
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Cabal_of_the_Holy_Pretzel/join
Cabal of the Holy International Discordian Internet & Usenet Terrorist
Pretzel
"i have no need for sex; i'd rather tease you, honeybuns." -- Teh Mop
Jockey doesn't know the meaning of "TMI". MID:
<1253073.6...@unixd0rk.com>
"What are marijuana tablets?"
"When logic and proportion
Have fallen softly dead
And the White Knight is talking backwards
And the Red Queen's 'off with her head!'
Remember what the dormouse said:
'Feed your head
Feed your head
Feed your head'"
-- "White Rabbit", Jefferson Airplane
I own "James C Cracked is God!!!":
MID: <1161060410.7...@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com>
"Chips on you dud, you got bugged for being near me, Viruses transmit
that way you know." -- Blooey: Master of the Autoflame. Message-ID:
<4556A926...@pharae.org> http://tinyurl.com/virusestransmit
"The nonsense screeds you compose and post to usenet lack any kind of
coherent and rational meaning whatsoever, and are composed of random
bits and pieces stolen from mythology, science fiction, religion, comic
books, etc., placed into a blender, and the switch turned to the highest
setting.
About every other screed has droppings of death threats, racial
bigotry, laughably false prophesies of gloom and doom, and inane
attempts to extort money. These bland, meaningless, pulpy messes are
then trowled into usenet; identical or nearly identical screeds are
repeated ad nauseum." -- Art Deco had to clean up bits of Warhol for
days after using the Hammer on him
"Q: How many Bush administration officials does it take to change a
light bulb?
A: None. There is no need to change anything. We made the right decision
to stick with that light bulb. People who say that it is burned out are
giving aid and encouragement to the Forces of Darkness." -- Anon.
"Outlaw amateur assassins!" -- Chiun
"Property is theft."
-- P. J. Proudhon
"Property is liberty."
-- P. J. Proudhon
"Property is impossible."
-- P. J. Proudhon
"Etymology:
Argumentum ad Septicus : argument to putrefaction. Derived from Septicum
Argumentum : putrefaction of argument.
"Septic \Sep"tic\, Septical \Sep"tic*al\
a. [L. septicus to make putrid: cf. F. septique.]
Having power to promote putrefaction. Of or relating to or
caused by putrefaction." -- Kadaitcha Man, indirectly to
Donald "Skeptic"/"Septic" Alford, in MID: <a3svh.d...@news.alt.net>
"I never fail to be amazing" -- Looney Maroon for September 2006 nominee
William Barwell's ego knows no bounds. MID:
12ggt3q...@corp.supernews.com
"Red meat won't hurt you. Fuzzy, blue-green meat will."
-- Zog the etc., in alt.discordia (correct
as needed)
"may you live to whatever age you'd like to." -- Dave Hillstrom,
in alt.discordia
"We are most nearly ourselves when we achieve the seriousness of the
child at play." -- Heraclitus
"And thats another mistake on your part. Your 'playing' games on usenet,
and I'm not playing...It has nothing to do with impressing you, it has
more to do with making sure you have the education you'll need to debate.
The debate is no fun for me if you are mentally incapable of it. I'm
giving you an opportunity to educate yourself. That's all." -- A trashy
former virus-writer turned Outer Filth doesn't know if he's playing or
working, in MID: <1159389579....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com>
"I am incapable of original thoughts" -- Ctrl¤/Alt¤/Del¤ has an honest
moment, in MID: <0h59i25ejlthqeeit...@4ax.com>
"But now the end is near. Now Mark Foley comes along and is making
almost all liberal dreams come true and seriously, I'm sorry for it.
See, I believe in karma. I believe what comes around goes around and I
know full well that it's just bad juju to wish such a level of turmoil
and ill upon other humans, warmongering gay-hating maladroits or no, and
that the real path of enlightenment is paved with forgiveness and
progress and white-hot love and turning the other cheek and scotch.
"In fact, Jesus said something about that, I do believe. He said, "Knock
it off already with the warmongering and the hating of each other and
let's all get some wine and party like it's 2012." Then again, he never
saw Karl Rove stab the nation with the dull ice pick of bogus fear. He
never heard George W. Bush describe brutal war and the death of tens of
thousands as "just a comma" in world history.
"Check that. Maybe I'm not so sorry after all." -- Mark Morford,
http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/gate/archive/2006/10/11/
notes101106.DTL&nl=fix
http://tinyurl.com/kusmr