Kent Bradley Wills Worlds Most Famous Convicted Garage Burglar

[Greegor]

KBW > Greg quit working for about a decade.

Kent lies.

bsr > How long has it been since you last "taught", Kunt?

KBW > School ended in May. This means that in my
KBW > capacity as a teacher, it's been a few weeks.
KBW > BTW, Greg, your continued admission to
KBW > being a gay man is no longer necessary.

Using "gay" as an epithet against a straight
person is not very enlightened of you, Kent.

KBW > Everyone, including you, seems to
KBW > have accepted this TRUTH about you.
KBW > And I see you're still using and abusing
KBW > illegal drugs.  You openly admitted this
KBW > is why you stalk the members of alt.friends.

Kent lies.

bsr > But you have no such capacity Kunt, it's a
bsr > fraud, like your imaginary family ;-)

KBW > Since school is no longer in session,
KBW > your claim is TECHNICALLY true.  At
KBW > this time I'm not officially teaching anyone.

State officials in both Iowa and Arkansas list the
names of public school teachers publicly on the web.
You're not listed as an active teacher, Kent.
Arkansas once listed you as inactive.

I'm not sure if your teaching certificate would
have been yanked because of your felonies
but it's unlikely that any school district would
hire somebody with your record, Kent.

Especially because of the misdemeanor for
using a TEEN to commit a felony.

> Once again you PROVE you can only be honest if you think honesty
> will promote one or more of your MANY drug induced (unless you lied)
> lies.  And more evidence that you are Greg's sock puppet.
> If my family is imaginary, how do you explain away the comments
> from those who have met them?  Maybe you should claim people with whom
> you've had a history are my sock puppets.  You tried that before, and
> made yourself look the fool, Greg.

Love the grandstanding, Kent.
Did you declare yourself to be a WINNER?

KBW > BTW, your admission that you are
KBW > still using and abusing illegal drugs,
KBW > by The Hanson Standard, is accepted.

You heap lies upon lies, Kent.

KBW > And you alone seem hung up on your
KBW > sexual orientation.
KBW > You're gay.  Got it.  Don't care.

You repeat gay epithet against a straight opponent
while trying to avoid being labeled homophobic.

KBW > As I've explained to you MANY times,
KBW > you're not going to be able to use a
KBW > claim of defending against gay bashing
KBW > to justify your constant lying.  No one
KBW > cares that you are gay.  Really.

You are the one who made your teen accomplice
Sean Michael Bilyeu's gender an issue, Kent. Why?





http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.visitors/msg/7bb21a6718c8504c

Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:46:12 [...]
KBW 2003 > I was born in Krakow, Poland on
KBW 2003 > Jan. 8, 1969. I grew up there, and
KBW 2003 > in the mid 80's I came to the US.

http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768

http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=beeheh&searchTerm=eHdU.Zbaa.aadj.eabQ&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ia-supreme-court/1360099.html

Photo of Kent's shack at 1110 South F Street, Rogers, Arkansas
72756-5520
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&biw=1020&bih=602&q=1110+South+F+Street,+Rogers,+Arkansas+72756-5520
In the PHOTO (left side) look for the RED CHAIR on the front
"stoop"! LOL

http://cbk2.google.com/cbk?output=thumbnail&cb_client=maps_sv&thumb=2&thumbfov=30&ll=36.322943,-94.107730&cbll=36.322971,-94.107481

http://cbk2.google.com/cbk?output=thumbnail&cb_client=maps_sv&thumb=2&thumbfov=100&ll=36.322943,-94.107730&cbll=36.322971,-94.107481

http://cbk2.google.com/cbk?output=thumbnail&thumb=1&ll=36.322943,-94.107730&cbll=36.322971,-94.107481

http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/

Iowa Courts
Online Search
< Start A Case Search Here! > click

Iowa Courts Online Search
Search Selection

Under Trial Court < click on Case Search >

Wills Kent B
02401 ESPR015146 INA J WILLS ESTATE
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT ******
05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT
05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRES VS KENT
05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRES VS KENT
05771 STAN201670 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 STAN210929 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969

A list of case numbers will be presented.
Click on the SECOND Felony ending with 876.

Under the "Charges" tab:

Charges, Dispositions, Sentences
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
Citation Number:

[ These notes are still ONLINE and verifiable under CHARGES ]
[ Text compressed for presentation on usenet ]

Charges, Dispositions, Sentences
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
Citation Number:

Count 01
08/12/2003 Offense Date BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
12/17/2003 Adj.Date: GUILTY
01/16/2004 Sentence 10 Year(s) SUSPENDED PRISON
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION 2 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FT DSM FACILITY-MAX
BENEFITS
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE 150 Hour(s)
12/17/2003 Sentence: JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
Count 02
08/12/2003 Offense BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR VEHICLE
(AGMS)
12/17/2003 GUILTY
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON Duration: 2 Year(s) SUSPENDED PRISON
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION Duration: 2 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FT DSM FACILITY-MAX
BENEFITS
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE Duration: 150 Hour(s)
12/17/2003 Sentence: JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/06/09
Count 03
08/12/2003 USING JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE OFFENSE(FELC)709A.
6(2)
12/17/2003 GUILTY
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON Duration: 10 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON 10 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION 2 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FT DSM FACILITY-MAX
BENEFITS
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE 150 Hour(s)
12/17/2003 Sentence: JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09

http://fifthdcs.com/addresses.cfm?location=fort

Fifth Judicial District Department of Correctional Services

Fort Des Moines Community Corrections Complex
Main Phone Number: (515) 242-6900

[Greegor]

On Jun 2, 7:36 pm, Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Sat, 2 Jun 2012 14:08:06 +0000 (UTC), Bit <bit...@aukhistory.org>
>
> Rot wrote:
> >from Greegor  <greego...@gmail.com>:
> >>Anon or whoever you are:
> >>interested in waking up on top of my prong?
>
> >Pay your fines Hanson.
>
>      That will NEVER happen.  To avoid paying the $2800+ he owed in
> fuel,

Kent knows that the records he refers to are not mine.
Different Greg Hanson, no DOB or MI,
in wrong part of the state.

> Greg quit working for about a decade.  Since being
> diagnosed with Asperger's, he's able to get SSI,

Just another series of Kent Wills lies, of course.
I do not have Asperger's Syndrome and Aspergers
does not automatically qualify people for Social
Security Disability income.

> but he'll NEVER use that for
> any past debts.  This includes his fines.

Kent Bradley Wills never paid the $306.06 he owed
for unpaid rent to Sweeneys plus court costs.

05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT

initiated 3/30/99 and disposed 8/25/99

[Greegor]

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.visitors/msg/7bb21a6718c8504c

Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:46:12 [...]
KBW 2003 > I was born in Krakow, Poland on
KBW 2003 > Jan. 8, 1969. I grew up there, and
KBW 2003 > in the mid 80's I came to the US.

http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768

http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=beeheh&searchTerm=eHdU.Zbaa.aadj.eabQ&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ia-supreme-court/1360099.html

Photo of Kent's shack at 1110 South F Street, Rogers, Arkansas
72756-5520
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&biw=1020&bih=602&q=1110+South+F+Street,+Rogers,+Arkansas+72756-5520

http://gis.co.benton.ar.us/website/basemap/viewer.htm

Scroll to bottom right OWNER NAME input and type in
Wills Family Trust and hit enter.
Or put in a name of Wills, or put a parcel ID like
02-00444-000 or 15-09938-000 in the blank
marked parcel ID and then hit enter.

15-09938-000 WILLS FAMILY TRUST-FRED A JR & JANET R
8250 WILLS CT 57390 14-19-28

Kent Bradley Wills, 1110 South F Street, Rogers, Arkansas 72756-5520
County parcel # 02-00444-000 (Owned by Kent's folks Fred and Janet.)

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/5d174a24e822f3a1?dmode=source

G > D. apt building at 202 NW College Ave Ankeny IA

Sat, Sep 19 2009 4:52 pm
KBW > One of the buildings I've owned in my life.
KBW > Very old news.

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.true-crime/msg/9181902a00641f9a?hl=en&dmode=source

G > D. apt building at 202 NW College Ave Ankeny IA

KBW > It's gone through at least three owners since I sold it. Deal
with it.

[Greegor]

[...]
KBW > Again, a trust and a trust fund are two
KBW > different things. Anyone who's taken
KBW > a high school level economics class will know this.

I can hardly wait for your explanation of the
difference between a trust and a trust fund, Kent!

[Fred Hall]

On Mon, 11 Jun 2012 11:29:54 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<gree...@gmail.com> wrote in
<fe505dd8-d904-4e6c...@re8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>:

I can hardly wait for you to explain why Lisa's little girl was not
returned to her.
--

http://blackhelicopternews.blogspot.com/p/award-winners-1994-2012.html

http://fnvw.databasix.com (awards descriptions and more)

[Greegor]

You asserted that a trust and a trust fund are two different things,
Kent.

Do you think that grandstanding about how
everybody already knows the difference between
a trust and a trust fund was your PROOF or
explanation of the difference?

Is this gonna be like your assertion that gasoline
could be used in a fire extinguisher since the liquid
gasoline itself does not burn?

That was kind of an Aspergers like assertion,
by the way, carrying a technicality WAY too far
and proving that you lack common sense, Kent.

[Greegor]

[Greegor]

> > > (( Shakes head)) Frigging obsessive idiot with his damn spamming
> > > groups the same crap over and over......
>
> > > Moe
>
> >   Shut up you ignorant mole-ron.
>
> Cut your sock Gaggie.
>
> Moe

Maureen, "bit some rot" is not my sock.
I do not use any anonymous posting services.
Your "intuition" that it's me is wrong.
You simply cannot accept the fact that somebody
else might take a dislike to Kent and you, right?

Either you can PROVE that "bit some rot" is
my sock or you cannot.

Got any proof aside from your faulty "intuition"?

I think you KNOW that it's not me, because
you assert that it's me WAY too much.

Seriously Maureen, how long is the list of
KentMoe past opponents anyway?

I only know of a few of the more recent
vocal opponents. It could be somebody from
further back in time or it could be somebody
who never even picked on Kent before.

There are any number of reasons why somebody
may have joined the Kent Wills fan club.

Who knows, maybe it's a member of the
Bilyeu family or the Weiben family or maybe
even a member of the Sweeney family.

It could be somebody whose garage got burgled.

There's even an outside chance that it could
be one of Kent's distant relatives.

Moe > Subject Re: Greegor shows his obsessive love for a married man

Why do you pose as being so very gay friendly
but then use gay as an insult of straight
opponents, Maureen? You tried this before
and when I pointed it out you LIED, denying it.
An out Lesbian wiccan chewed you out for
blatantly doing it but denying that you did.

ie Your gay lame failed spectacularly.

So WHY are you trying the very same tactic
that FAILED so spectacularly for you before?

What do you think it indicates when a person
who claims to be so gay friendly tries to
"gay lame" a straight opponent?

What do you think it indicates when that person
denies what they so blatantly did?

What do you think it indicates when that
LIE fails so spectacularly, yet mere months
later, that person tries yet again to
"gay lame" a straight opponent?

You REPEATED behavior that failed spectacularly, Maureen??

I'm sure you would argue that there is
no psychopathy in those monumental
contradictions of proudly trumpeted beliefs.

[Greegor]

> 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

Wow Kent, those old small claims cases
filed by mistake and traffic citations sure
are DAMNING!

LOL

It's not like you ever paid off Sweeneys.
Should I harp on your driving violations
like repeated failure to carry proper
vehicle registration papers, Kenty?

If you look really hard you might find parking
tickets on me too! WooOOOH!

[Greegor]

What's the difference between a trust and a trust fund, Kent?



Gary Burnore's confession to Police was about
kissing the kid but later he came up
with a story that he woke up with the
teen riding on top of his wee willy.

Gary Lee Burnore DOB 10/13/1957 mugshot 1997

http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/defectgb.jpg

GLB Probation Officer Report (3 pages) Oct 1997

http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc1_Page1.JPG
http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc1_Page2.JPG
http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc1_Page3.JPG

"Appearing before the Court for Violation of Probation
is 40-year-old Gary Burnore. The defendant was
convicted of violation of Sec. 647.6(a) PC (Annoying/
Molesting a Child Under the Age of 18). He is allegedly
in violation for failure to register, failure to make
payments, failure to participate in counseling, and
leaving the state of California without permission.
The defendant takes little responsibility for the
occurring offense, minimizing the part he played,
blaming others, and justifying his behavior as being
appropriate. Likewise, the defendant appears to
view himself as the victim, vocalizing his distress
that he has done everything 'right' and that the
Probation Department is preventing him from moving.
It is his belief that the probation officer is
'harassing' him.

Although the defendant verbalizes his compliance
with the terms and conditions of probation, it
seems clear that his actions speak louder than
his words, especially in the light of his recent
absconding from Santa Clara County. In secret,
the defendant moved to another state, fully
realizing he could not move from California
until Interstate Compact had finished their
investigation and the new state accepted his
case. The defendant's behavior can only be
characterized as manipulative and self-serving.
It appears the defendant does not believe he
needs to follow the rules, but rather that he
is a victim of the system and can, therefore,
do as he pleases.

The defendant's attitude, failure to comply,
and the point that he takes only minimal
responsibility for the occurring offense,
suggests that risk for potential victims
may be high."

J. Puccinelli, Probation Officer, Unit IV
Municipal Court of the State of California,
Santa Clara County, People of the State
of California v. Gary Burnore
Probation Office No. DMU044
Court No. C9618225 DA No. 961131078
Santa Clara Police Department Case No. 9615185


Gary Lee's Official ONLINE NC Department Of Corrections web page

http://webapps6.doc.state.nc.us/opi/viewoffender.do?method=view&offenderID=0594483

Interstate Compact State: CALIFORNIA
INITIAL 00000000 ASSAULT ON FEMALE (PRINCIPAL) 01/01/1996 UNKN. NON
CLASS CODE

SEVEN PAGE POLICE NARRATIVE

http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc2_Page1.JPG
http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc2_Page2.JPG
http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc2_Page3.JPG
http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc2_Page4.JPG
http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc2_Page5.JPG
http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc2_Page6.JPG
http://www.uffnet.com/mirrors/archives.mfn.org/images/batch_2/Doc2_Page7.JPG

(Where Gary apparently LIVES)
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&biw=1020&bih=602&q=4469+Still+Pines+Drive,+Raleigh,+NC+27613-3334

http://cbk3.google.com/cbk?output=thumbnail&cb_client=maps_sv&thumb=2&thumbfov=66&ll=35.865647,-78.710116&cbll=35.865692,-78.709956

(Apparently they RENT this out)
Belinda West 137 Meadowbrook Ln Davidson, NC 28036-8059
Parcel ID#: 00705124 GIS ID#: 00705124
GARY LEE BURNORE AND BELINDA W BURNORE
137 MEADOWBROOK LN DAVIDSON, NC 28036
http://meckcama.co.mecklenburg.nc.us/mvideo/20050208/D8083943.jpg

[Greegor]

KBW > Again, a trust and a trust fund are two different
KBW > things. Anyone who's taken a high school level
KBW > economics class will know this.

I've asked for four days and you haven't
been able to explain the difference, Kent.


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.bob-larson/msg/e332a791b44422e4?hl=en&dmode=source

Received: by 10.68.238.65 with SMTP id vi1mr6057288pbc.
7.1339362926088;
Sun, 10 Jun 2012 14:15:26 -0700 (PDT)
Path: l9ni38720pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news1.google.com!goblin2!goblin1!
goblin.stu.neva.ru!newsfeed.datemas.de!news.datemas.de!not-for-mail
From: Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups: alt.fan.bob-
larson,alt.usenet.kooks,nc.general,triangle.general,alt.fan.gburnore
Subject: Re: WILLS FAMILY TRUST
Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 16:15:21 -0500
Organization: Datemas.de http://www.news.datemas.de
Lines: 181
Message-ID: <hh3at7hckq4njv1ji...@4ax.com>
References: <4ccls7533m872s469...@4ax.com>
<jqg6e3$9r8$3...@dont-email.me>
<5eans7la0rpnu4g71...@4ax.com> <jqinif$je5$1@dont-
email.me> <v73qs7tvahvj6pca3...@4ax.com> <jqlajl$1sf
$4...@dont-email.me> <47sss7diss6pru1uc...@4ax.com>
<jqtej2$50c$2...@dont-email.me>
<29441103-70e7-49f7...@v9g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>
<3299t7lmhm93b3rqa...@4ax.com>
<5f248565-3069-46aa...@t20g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: news.datemas.de Cuj5wbk20Kf65laWGReyeyeyTHIVt
+FxrnsEvui6oIsu4b6U4mU5ye99O/H78Eukk5sbAdNHuotdXMSrhf0x
+ySFlkCB10HYcOFgvsjmGJ+5t8Pv+MFlU48xkmRLYXeeLRnzpsjJe9h5kotvjsRjdO/RN/
uJNP1jJLLEKG3oJPw=
X-Complaints-To: ab...@datemas.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Sun, 10 Jun 2012 21:15:25 +0000 (UTC)
X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186
X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 120610-1, 06/10/2012), Outbound message
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

KBW > Again, a trust and a trust fund are two different
KBW > things. Anyone who's taken a high school level
KBW > economics class will know this.

[cda...@jprude.net]

>> Again, a trust and a trust fund are two different

>> things. Anyone who's taken a high school level

>> economics class will know this.
>
> I've asked for four days and you haven't
> been able to explain the difference

Even before the enactment of the NCLB law, one learned in
high school that (a) "a trust" in the context used in this thread is
an explicit agreement usually memorialized in writing or, for the
purposes of some relationships, is a law implied agreement to act in
defined ways as a fiduciary for the benefit of another, eg., obliging
the trustee to hold and manage and disburse money or tangible property
for the benefit of an identified other or identified class of others
and (b) "a trust fund" is the corpus, the tangible or intangible
property or other things being held and managed for that other or
those others pursuant to such an explicit or implied agreement.
And so for example, "a trust" is to "a trust fund" as a
written agreement to provide another with an orgasm is to the orgasm
itself.

[Greegor]

[Greegor]

G > What's the difference between a trust and a trust fund, Kent?

KBW > Asked and answered.

Liar.

[darned al]

On 6/19/2012 7:05 AM, Kent Wills wrote:
> Your move, stupid.

Your conviction, burglar.

[Greegor]

[Bill Graham]

Kent Wills wrote:

There is no such thing as a "trust". Trust is a verb, and as such, it
requires a subject to be acted upon. If some bunch of loony lawyers have
used the word as a noun, well, that's their stupidity. There are billions
and billions of pronounceable combinations of letters in the English
language. There is no reason to have to use one of its verbs as a noun. Any
six year old could make up a new word that doesn't carry any baggage along
with it.

[Bill Graham]

Greegor wrote:
> What's the difference between a trust and a trust fund, Kent?

[Greegor]

G > What's the difference between a trust and a trust fund, Kent?

Bill Graham wrote:
> There is no such thing as a "trust". Trust is a verb, and as such, it
> requires a subject to be acted upon. If some bunch of loony lawyers have
> used the word as a noun, well, that's their stupidity. There are billions
> and billions of pronounceable combinations of letters in the English
> language. There is no reason to have to use one of its verbs as a noun. Any
> six year old could make up a new word that doesn't carry any baggage along
> with it.

Kent said that any kid who had high school economics
would know the difference between a trust and a trust fund.

It was just Kent's usual BS and grandstanding, of course.

[Bill Graham]

I know, and I shouldn't have commented on a thread that wasn't any of my
business. But I love to jump in and comment on matters of logic like
this.... More as an attempt at pushing my distorted sense of humor than
anything else..... Actually, our language has many examples of useful nouns
that came from verbs... I like to make them up myself.

[Greegor]

Kent never quits even when his scam is exposed.

[Greegor]

> Where do you  see a scam, Greg?

Usually whenever you open your mouth or type.

> You're the one who was PROVED to
> have replied to the post where I explained the difference.  Yes, my
> explanation was very simplistic, but it was accurate.

Your assertion with grandstanding is NOT an explanation, Kent.

You didn't explain the difference between a trust and a trust fund.

[Greegor]

You claimed that there is a difference between a trust and a trust
fund, Kent.
You even claimed that anybody who took High School Economics would
know.
Quit pointing everywhere else and explain the difference, Kent.



Kent has rotated through various types of denials,
some of which are not compatible with the others.
Kent used a few stooges and socks to help him
try to sell his false denials. The funniest part is
that Kent's APPEAL reflects the same kind of
idiocy that Kent tries on usenet.

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rfAl19rbEbk/TiImA61TYoI/AAAAAAAAAAk/2TCqaQv0ED0/s640/ma.jpg

http://5magazine.files.wordpress.com/2010/01/img_0271.jpg

http://z.hubpages.com/u/1051348_f520.jpg

http://media.kickstatic.com/kickapps/images/63269/photos/PHOTO_14204311_63269_25461334_ap.jpg

http://profile.ak.fbcdn.net/hprofile-ak-snc4/275503_100001671186315_604162677_n.jpg

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-rfAl19rbEbk/TiImA61TYoI/AAAAAAAAAAk/2TCqaQv0ED0/s640/ma.jpg

http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=1155768

Screen Captures further proving the ID on Kent is correct.
http://immaculatecongestion.blogspot.com/

http://groups.google.com/group/alt.alien.visitors/msg/7bb21a6718c8504c

Sun, 15 Jun 2003 03:46:12 [...]
KBW 2003 > I was born in Krakow, Poland on
KBW 2003 > Jan. 8, 1969. I grew up there, and
KBW 2003 > in the mid 80's I came to the US.

http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=beeheh&searchTerm=eHdU.Zbaa.aadj.eabQ&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ia-supreme-court/1360099.html

Photo of Kent's shack at 1110 South F Street, Rogers, Arkansas
72756-5520
http://maps.google.com/maps?hl=en&biw=1020&bih=602&q=1110+South+F+Street,+Rogers,+Arkansas+72756-5520
In the PHOTO (left side) look for the RED CHAIR on the front
"stoop"! LOL

http://cbk2.google.com/cbk?output=thumbnail&cb_client=maps_sv&thumb=2&thumbfov=30&ll=36.322943,-94.107730&cbll=36.322971,-94.107481

http://cbk2.google.com/cbk?output=thumbnail&cb_client=maps_sv&thumb=2&thumbfov=100&ll=36.322943,-94.107730&cbll=36.322971,-94.107481

http://cbk2.google.com/cbk?output=thumbnail&thumb=1&ll=36.322943,-94.107730&cbll=36.322971,-94.107481

http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/

Iowa Courts
Online Search
< Start A Case Search Here! > click

Iowa Courts Online Search
Search Selection

Under Trial Court < click on Case Search >

Wills Kent B
02401 ESPR015146 INA J WILLS ESTATE
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969
05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT ******
05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT
05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRES VS KENT
05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRES VS KENT
05771 STAN201670 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 STAN210929 IOWA vs [ KENT ] 01/08/1969
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT 01/08/1969

A list of case numbers will be presented.
Click on the SECOND Felony ending with 876.

Under the "Charges" tab:

Charges, Dispositions, Sentences
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
Citation Number:

[ These notes are still ONLINE and verifiable under CHARGES ]
[ Text compressed for presentation on usenet ]

Charges, Dispositions, Sentences
Title: STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS
Case: 05771 FECR176876 (POLK)
Citation Number:

Count 01
08/12/2003 Offense Date BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE - 1983 (FELC)
12/17/2003 Adj.Date: GUILTY
01/16/2004 Sentence 10 Year(s) SUSPENDED PRISON
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION 2 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FT DSM FACILITY-MAX
BENEFITS
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE 150 Hour(s)
12/17/2003 Sentence: JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09
Count 02
08/12/2003 Offense BURGLARY 3RD DEGREE - UNOCCUPIED MOTOR VEHICLE
(AGMS)
12/17/2003 GUILTY
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON Duration: 2 Year(s) SUSPENDED PRISON
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION Duration: 2 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FT DSM FACILITY-MAX
BENEFITS
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE Duration: 150 Hour(s)
12/17/2003 Sentence: JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/06/09
Count 03
08/12/2003 USING JUVENILE TO COMMIT AN INDICTABLE OFFENSE(FELC)709A.
6(2)
12/17/2003 GUILTY
01/16/2004 Sentence: PRISON Duration: 10 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: SUSPENDED PRISON 10 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: PROBATION 2 Year(s)
01/16/2004 Sentence: RESIDENTIAL FACILITY FT DSM FACILITY-MAX
BENEFITS
01/16/2004 Sentence: COMMUNITY SERVICE 150 Hour(s)
12/17/2003 Sentence: JO-PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 1/16/09
01/25/2006 Sentence: IMPOSED PROBATION EXTENDED UNTIL 01/16/09

http://fifthdcs.com/addresses.cfm?location=fort

Fifth Judicial District Department of Correctional Services

Fort Des Moines Community Corrections Complex
Main Phone Number: (515) 242-6900

http://www.lexisone.com/lx1/caselaw/freecaselaw?action=OCLGetCaseDetail&format=FULL&sourceID=beeheh&searchTerm=eHdU.Zbaa.aadj.eabQ&searchFlag=y&l1loc=FCLOW


http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ia-supreme-court/1360099.html

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.

[Greegor]

KBW > Where do you  see a scam, Greg?

G > Usually whenever you open your mouth or type.

KBW > You're the one who was PROVED to
KBW > have replied to the post where I explained the difference.  Yes,
my
KBW > explanation was very simplistic, but it was accurate.

G > Your assertion with grandstanding is NOT an explanation, Kent.

G > You didn't explain the difference between a trust and a trust
fund.

Hi Kent!

[Greegor]

Kent Subject: Re: Gregory Scott Hanson, one conviction for OWI, two
Kent Subject: Re: convictions for BEATING his ex-wife, has a
Kent Subject Re: garnishment order because he STOLE heating fuel,
Kent Subject Re: and is a self confessed burglar

Kent must have decided that my ACTUAL criminal
records are just not bad enough for him, so he fabricated
an OWI record for me using a text editor, and tried to
stick me with some other Greg Hanson's garnishment
apparently from a company known here for fuel and heating oil.


http://groups.google.com/group/alt.fan.bob-larson/msg/233c04feab3888b2?hl=en&dmode=source

Received: by 10.68.241.162 with SMTP id wj2mr8636161pbc.
2.1340721894457;
Tue, 26 Jun 2012 07:44:54 -0700 (PDT)
Path: l9ni22294pbj.0!nntp.google.com!news2.google.com!goblin3!goblin1!

goblin.stu.neva.ru!newsfeed.datemas.de!news.datemas.de!not-for-mail
From: Kent Wills <compu...@gmail.com>

Newsgroups: alt.fan.bob-larson,alt.usenet.kooks,misc.legal,alt.prisons
Subject: Gregory Scott Hanson, one conviction for OWI, two convictions
for BEATING his ex-wife, has a garnishment order because he STOLE
heating fuel, and is a self confessed burglar
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 09:44:40 -0500
Organization: Datemas.de http://www.news.datemas.de
Lines: 107
Message-ID: <sliju71m6ro3t345a...@4ax.com>
References: <cd419f54-c7f2-4999-
a14a-149...@j9g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>
<p8u0u7tfgju412iu2...@4ax.com> <ge6dnT-
egdG_c33SnZ2...@giganews.com>
<qo63u75gkkuugh6nb...@4ax.com> <dbd48077-
ed12-4cfc-984...@6g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>
<oq74u7deildh9mcnc...@4ax.com>
<83c2183b-2e9e-40dc...@r3g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
<54f054ba-59cb-4e55...@m10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
X-Trace: news.datemas.de uJ3RG
+PDeE5Nd9N0TypPHxWAiRZZN6VmFrdgaxWSjvszueqaZNVyt2gBJlcH2fvIWyQpZ75TE/
oZyf+5R+StuZWiS+9N+3JvOTBp+71W0b8BOULxf3IO/
kGVNf8PPs05dgGNRw5rGIck0Mhdbid5jX4TM40odQAFy0amey6daXI=
X-Complaints-To: ab...@datemas.de
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2012 14:44:53 +0000 (UTC)

X-Antivirus-Status: Clean
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 6.00/32.1186

X-Antivirus: avast! (VPS 120626-0, 06/26/2012), Outbound message
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

On Mon, 25 Jun 2012 17:15:31 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<greego...@gmail.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Jun 2012 11:49:02 -0700 (PDT), Greegor <greego...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> Where do you see a scam, Greg?
>>

>>Usually whenever you open your mouth or type.
>>

>>> You're the one who was PROVED to

>>> have replied to the post where I explained the difference. Yes, my

>>> explanation was very simplistic, but it was accurate.
>>

>>Your assertion with grandstanding is NOT an explanation, Kent.
>>

>>You didn't explain the difference between a trust and a trust fund.
>
>Hi Kent!

I appreciate that you are admitting you LIED when you claimed I
didn't explain the difference, and that you can no longer lie your way
out of it, but you still aren't me. You are still the sad, pathetic
loser you've always been.


A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott "Piggly
Wiggly" Hanson (They are so accurate, Greg compared them the comment
that water is wet):

Title: ST VS GREGORY HANSON
(DOB 05/22/1959)
CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
Comments: CT 2 SPEED
Disposition Status
GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT

"That's the chick, but not the pic, zipperhead!"
Greg "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson proving his bigotry towards Asians, by
attacking my first wife (deceased).
http://www.rsdb.org/search?q=zipperhead

Me: "I suspect your stalking is due to the use and abuse of illegal
drugs, Greg. Is the reason for your stalking the members of
alt.friends due to the use and abuse of illegal drugs?

Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child abuser:
"Of course."

"My family's case is for Neglect, but we are treated
in virtually every regard as child abusers, marked on
the Child Abuse registry, for example."
-- Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson, wife beater and child
abuser

" ... But there ought to be conferences and studies on how to curb
minority overpopulation, repatriate minorities abroad, imprison more
minorities, increase use of the death penalty and divest minorities of
the power they have usurped over us in recent years. That would
address the most pressing problems of our day. ... "
April 2000, Gregory Hanson
http://www.nationalist.org/ATW/2000/040101.html#Hanson

Path:
news.datemas.de!newsfeed.datemas.de!goblin1!goblin.stu.neva.ru!
postnews.google.com!y21g2000yqn.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
From: Greegor <greego...@gmail.com>
Newsgroups:
misc.kids,alt.support.foster-
parents,uk.people.parents,alt.support.child-protective-services

With the Christmas season upon us again, my stepdaughter was launching
into her usual tirade of "I need this" (Nintendo 64 games, Pokemon,
videos, Rhianna CD, etc.) After enduring a trip through Kmart, I
was at my wits end. I took the kid home and filled the bathtub with
water. Then I dunked the brat's head under the water and counted out
a full minute, with her flailing her arms. I brought her up and she
gasped for air. When she'd caught her breath, I asked her, "When you
were under that water, did you 'need' Nintendo? Pokemon? Rhianna?"
She shook her head. "What were you thinking about?" I
prodded. She told me "I was thinking that I needed air."

"Now you know the difference between 'need' and 'want'" I exclaimed
triumphantly.

--a true story


As of Sunday, June 06, 2012:

SMALL CLAIMS ORIGINAL NOTICE
Comments: OPA $2805.04
COPIES TO PA
VERIFICATION OF ACCOUNT

JUDGEMENT DEFAULT
Comments: JUDGMENT AGAINST GREGORY HANSON FOR $2805.04
+ INTEREST AT 7.271% FROM 8/6/98 & $45.00 COSTS.

Comments: NOTE OF GARN/NOTE TO DEFT SERV 9/24/98 BY WCSD
TO SYSTEMS MANAGEMENT (ED POLKERS) FOR GREG HANSON
FEES $35.60

Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson has a Garnishment order against
him. There is nothing to even suggest any of the money legally owed
has been paid. The SoL on the order has likely expired, but Greg still
can't risk getting a job due to it.

[Greegor]

Kent Subject: Re: Gregory Scott Hanson, one conviction for OWI, two
Kent Subject: Re: convictions for BEATING his ex-wife, has a
Kent Subject Re:  garnishment order because he STOLE heating fuel,
Kent Subject Re:  and is a self confessed burglar

G > Kent must have decided that my ACTUAL criminal
G > records are just not bad enough for him, so he fabricated
G > an OWI record for me using a text editor, and tried to
G > stick me with some other Greg Hanson's garnishment
G > apparently from a company known here for fuel and heating oil.

Now Kent is flood posting his above barrage of lies.

[Greegor]

ding!