As I understand it, on Fri, 13 Jul 2007 01:03:22 -0600, "_ Prof. Jonez
_" <theprof@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
[...]
>>> Do tell what is an "unpublished" www site?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.
>
Ken is quite capable of explaining his meaning. I simply gave
a possible explanation.
Why do you lie?
>
>> Maybe he means
>
>You lying for Ken now too, eh Kent?
>
Why do you lie?
>>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.
Why do you lie?
>
>>
>>>
>>>> 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 ?
I'm not Larry.
Why do you lie?
>
>
>>
>>> 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?
Clearly you do. I can't figure out why.
>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.
Why do you lie?
>
>One day soon your wife will realize that repugnant fact and
>abandon your lying ass.
Why do you lie?
>
>> 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.
So when you turned me in, what happened? Or did you lie about
that?
Never mind, we know you lied.
>The issue remains your perpetual prevarications.
Why do you lied?
>
>
>> 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.
Why do you lie?
>
>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
Why do you lie?
>
>> It involved a comment a friend of
>> mine makes from time to time.
>
>Coupled with your perverse psycho-emotional disturbance.
Why do you lie?
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
Why do you lie?
>
>
>> Id there NOTHING you won't lie about?
>
>Projects the Perpetual Prevarication Felon from Iowa.
Why do you lie?
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
Why do you lie?
>
>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
Why do you lie?
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>> 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.
>
So you lied. Why?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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?
>
You think so. Why do you lie?
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> 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.
Why do yo lie?
>
>> It's been ages since I last looked, but
>> there were something like 20 names with K Wills listed.
>
>So who gives a ****.
You, as evidenced by your replying.
>Last time I looked there was flowing water
>in the upper Cimmaron river in southern Colorado ...
I don't see the connection.
>
>> Neither Lindsay's nor my name appear for very good reason
>
>Because you are not certificated in with the U$ FAA.
Why do you lie?
>
>>(and not the one you'll lie and claim).
I'm not psychic, yet I was able to accurately predict your
reply.
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> 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?
So she does own the state of Texas, but doesn't know it?
Please offer evidence to sup****t this claim.
>What brothel did
>you purchase her from again?
>
None, but you're mom's available for $5.00.
--
Kent
"I most stonger than Darth Va****!"
-- Zladko "Zlad" Vladcik
|
