Kent Wills wrote:
> As I understand it, on Thu, 12 Jul 2007 11:18:09 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez
> _" <theprof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>>
>>> Conversely, if Kent is able to travel internationally, it is a
>>> virtual certainty that he is not a convicted felon.
>>
>> An utterly false assertion.
>
> Not by Ted's standards.
>
>>
>>> Ted, you do know
>>> the logical fallacy of petitio principii, do you not?
>>
>> Based on your utterly false assertion.
>
> Not by Ted's standards.
>
>>
>>>
>>>> Moreover, it is PATENTLY OBVIOUS that the ticket has been forged to
>>>> indicate a different seat assignment and class of service than that
>>>> for which it was originally issued.
>>>
>>> Why don't you tell your audience the whole story, Stalking Ted?
>>> About how you were spelunking on Kent's UNPUBLISHED website
>>
>> Do tell what is an "unpublished" www site?
>
> I'm not sure what Ken meant by that.
> I made the screen caps of Ted's stalking available to all, so
> I don't think he meant that.
Because you lack the spine to call Ken's erroneous assertions
even when they are patently obvious.
> Maybe he means
You lying for Ken now too, eh Kent?
>the screen caps where Ted stated Geragos
> intentional withheld exculpatory evidence in Cameron's trial. I
> didn't make those known to the Usenet community.
>
>>
>> Are you claiming Ted broke computer access laws and hacked into
>> a system without authorization?
>
> It's possible Ted's done this, but I've yet to see any
> evidence of it.
>
>>
>>> in your
>>> desperate search for dirt to use against him? If Kent doctored the
>>> boarding pass for his own private purposes, and did not intend to
>>> deceive his audience on the Internet, how can you accuse him of
>>> lying to that audience?
>>
>> If Kent is so pathological that he prevaricates and lies "in
>> private" to himself, he needs some serious mental health treatment.
>>
>
> I've never had cause to lie to myself.
You're a lying piece of ****, Kent. The world knows that.
>
>>
>>> That you purloined the scan from his website is
>>> hardly his fault.
>>
>> Inevitable discovery.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> Given that Kent altered that information, it is EMINENTLY
>>>> reasonable to suppose that he forged his own name as well.
>>>
>>> Which is why Los Angeles District Attorney Craig Hum had every
>>> right to paint CaMORON Brown as a murderous s***-bunny. If he
>>> asked Sarah to abort Lauren, fought the child sup****t order, was
>>> looking for ways to beat the burden of paying for Lauren's sup****t,
>>> and cared for her in an incredibly reckless manner (especially,
>>> letting her run around loose on Inspiration Point, where any sane
>>> parent would be amazingly vigilant), then it is reasonable for a
>>> jury to conclude that he had the requisite intent to commit
>>> second-degree murder.
>>
>> Yet I can't find a conviction record for Cameron anywhere in
>> the California system, yet a felony conviction record for Kent Wills
>> is clearly visible in the Iowa DOC database.
>>
>
> Cameron hasn't been convicted of any crime related to Lauren's
> death. However, it is interesting to note that NONE of the jurors
> voted not guilty. Every one of them found that the prosecution had
> proved guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in regards to a crime. They
> simply couldn't all agree on which crime.
So he's still innocent, eh Larry ?
>
>> Go figure.
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> Everything you have said in defense of your precious CaMORON was
>>> just flushed down the toilet in that one sentence.
>>>
>>> That having been said, it is not eminently reasonable to suppose
>>> that Kent had forged his name on the boarding pass.
>>
>> Correct. However the evidence of the seat assignment and boarding
>> class conflicts is quite clear.
>
> If you say so. The fact remains, I went to Aruba at least
> once.
Who give a ****, really Kent? The issue is your habitual
pathological prevarication. You can't even tell the honest
truth about something that DID happen, you've got to
exaggerate it with lies and deceptions to the extent that
you scan and publish phoney seating assignments
on boarding p*****. You really are a pathetic piece of ****, Kent.
One day soon your wife will realize that repugnant fact and
abandon your lying ass.
> It's so unlikely a felon currently serving a sentence of
> probation or parole (depending on who is telling the tale) will be
> permitted to travel to South America, that it's laughable.
Unlikely, yet not impossible. And 1000s of Felons serving
non-custodial sentences violate their travel restrictions without
getting caught. It really ain't that hard, or that big of a deal.
The issue remains your perpetual prevarications.
> I've also offered evidence of other foreign travel.
Why not offer evidence that the Iowa DOC felony
record for Kent Bradley Wills and the subsequent
appealette record as published in Wests Legal Re****ter
is all fake.
>
>>
>>> First off,
>>> whiting out a number on a do***ent is pretty simple; whiting out a
>>> name written over a logo and replacing it with your own is
>>> painstaking work, and hard to get right.
>>
>> Unless someone is pathologically prevaricating with an almost
>> compulsive bent.
>
> I don't see how your actions are relevant to this point.
>
>>
>>
>>> Second, there is the matter
>>> of how he got that boarding pass, as those do***ents are usually
>>> trashed during the trip.
>>
>> Yet why would someone not only save a boarding pass, but go to
>> the trouble of scanning the image and storing it on their computer?
>>
>> Why would someone do that Ken?
>
> Why not?
> There was a reason for it.
Your perverse psycho-emotional disturbance.
> It involved a comment a friend of
> mine makes from time to time.
Coupled with your perverse psycho-emotional disturbance.
>
>>
>>
>>> Third, there is the evidence of the postcard
>>> sent to me (I am told Kent sent one to you, but I have no personal
>>> knowledge of this).
>>
>> Quite odd behavior, sending postcards from trivial tourist
>> destinations to one's usenet enemies, eh Kent?
>
> When did Ken and I become enemies?
You're lying again Kunt ... er, I mean Kent.
> Id there NOTHING you won't lie about?
Projects the Perpetual Prevarication Felon from Iowa.
>
>>
>>
>>> You can't pick up postcards from Aruba at a
>>> local Seven-Eleven.
>>
>> http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=200123356652
>
> Not the card I sent Ken.
No one claimed it was, you lying jackass.
>
>>
>>> Suffice it to say that your supposition that
>>> Kent must have forged his name on the do***ents in question (I have
>>> received written material from Kent before) is wholly unsup****ted by
>>> the evidence;
>>
>> Yet you haven't even begun to explain the seating anomaly.
>
> There's nothing to explain.
Then wear your title of King of Mendacious Prevarication proudly, Kent.
>
>>
>>> your entire argument relies solely on the verity of
>>> Iowa court records (which may or may not be accurate; assuming that
>>> they are begs the question).
>>
>> LOL! Riiiiiiiiiight. The Iowa DOC database is questionable, as is
>> the corresponding West's North Western Re****ter publication of the
>> Appellate decision.
>
> Have you seen the publication?
No, I have not. tjab has posted to it's existence. tjab has also posted
the existence of your Iowa DOC felony record, which I have seen
directly from the Iowa DOC database.
>
>>
>>>
>>> And as we all know, we can trust the government implicitly, isn't
>>> that right, Detective Leslie? :)
>>
>> Is West's North Western Re****ter a branch of the government now?
>
> You're willing to trust the Government when doing so furthers
> what you want, but they're all lying, treasonous bastards when they it
> doesn't.
Is West's North Western Re****ter a branch of the government now, you
pig-ignorant lying asswipe?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>> And then, there is the matter of Kent's postcard to me, [...]
>>>>
>>>> You've shown yourself to be a mendacious prevaricator before. For
>>>> all I know, you're just covering for him.
>>>
>>> Now, you are saying that I was the one who sent a postcard to
>>> myself? But as seeing that you have falsely 'tracked' me to Tahiti,
>>> I suppose it is possible that you will find some 'evidence' saying
>>> that I was also in Aruba at the time. Uh, Ted, if you can, make
>>> sure you get it right for a change? :)
>>>
>>>> You resent this assertion? Go find me
>>>> substantive proof -- that I can INDEPENDENTLY verify myself -- of
>>>> any of the claims Kent has made about himself (as for example, a
>>>> record of his marriage, or of his pilot's licence).
>>
>> Name Inquiry
>> Contact Airmen Branch
>> About
>>
>> FAA REGISTRY
>> Name Inquiry - List Results
>>
>> No records were found with KENT WILLS
>>
>>
>> Total Names found for K WILLS is 8
>>
>> KARLA PATRICIA WILLS
>> KATHERINE IRENE WILLS
>> KEDRICK RAY WILLS
>> KEITH K WILLS
>> KENNETH EDWARD WILLS
>> KENNETH EDWARD WILLS
>> KENNETH JOHN WILLS
>> KENNETH O WILLS
>>
>
> Where are the rest?
That's all there are.
> It's been ages since I last looked, but
> there were something like 20 names with K Wills listed.
So who gives a ****. Last time I looked there was flowing water
in the upper Cimmaron river in southern Colorado ...
> Neither Lindsay's nor my name appear for very good reason
Because you are not certificated in with the U$ FAA.
>(and not the one you'll lie and claim).
>
>>
>>>
>>> As you have demonstrated yourself to be a psychopathic stalker who
>>> has stalked your opponents on the Net -- going to one victim's
>>> house to take pictures of it, and taking pictures in my
>>> neighborhood to show that 'you could drop by at any time' -- there
>>> is no way that I would ever divulge personal information about Kent
>>> to you. You are mentally ill, Ted, and if Patty has any sense, she
>>> will see to it that you receive psychiatric care.
>>
>> Well maybe Kent's wife, Lindsay the "psychologist" could offer some
>> Tx
>> to Ted ...
>>
>
> I don't think she can offer Texas to anyone. I'm pretty sure
> she doesn't own the state. Hold on, I'll ask to make certain.
> She claims she doesn't.
So she's as pig-ignorant as you are, eh Kent? What brothel did
you purchase her from again?
|
