Prev: Kent and the walk in ""records office"" / ""Criminal Records"" / DCI phone number
Next: Kent and the ""Records Office""
From: Kent Wills on 4 Jul 2010 04:20
At one time, not so long ago, ex-con (one conviction for OWI and TWO
convictions for BEATING his ex-wife), child abuser and self confessed
user and abuser of illegal drugs, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson
<greegor47(a)gmail.com> wrote:



KEYWORDS: Gregory Scott Hanson, Lisa Rene Watkins, Kristen Watkins,
Tom Watkins, child abuse, OWI, child molestation, drugs, Greg Hanson,
felony, sexual assault, Donna Joann Hanson, Sandra Lyn Freese, Sandy
Freese, spousal abuse, greegor47, wife beater, sexual assault, James E
Hanson, Jim Hanson, Jimmy Hanson, Kris Watkins

>Kent, You created the horns of a dilemma
>that now impale you.
>

Please explain how.

>This fictional OWI you falsely claim I have?

I make no such claim.

>
>WHY doesn't it show up on the Iowa courts
>public web site?

According to you, it was to have been expunged. You'll recall I
only ASKED if this was the case.
What's kind of funny is how you then LIED and claimed I stated it
was to have been expunged, when I've never made such a claim.
Referencing YOU isn't the same as making the claim myself. Not to the
rational mind.
YMMV, of course.

>
>How could it appear at the ""records office""
>for you to write down, yet not appear
>on the public court docket web site?

Why do you ask the same question, though worded differently,
after it has already been answered?

>
>Logically, Did you think you could have it both ways?
>

What do you propose I'm trying to have both ways? Please be
specific and prepared to be exposed as a liar once again.

>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/753b12d60df0beca
>
>G > Still posting the fake OWI record
>G > you edited my name into, Kent?
>
>KBW > You admitted it is real.
>KBW > You claimed it was to have been expunged.
>
>G > Got a LINK to where I said that? I think not.
>
>KBW > I do. And as soon as you post the picture
>KBW > of David dressed as a Nazi and the
>KBW > picture of me on a pony, or admit you've
>KBW > been LYING about the existence of both,
>KBW > I'll gladly post it.
>
>H 4. Proof held hostage awaiting opponents proof on something else
>
>KBW > This requirement has been in place for
>KBW > a very long time, so your asking for a
>KBW > link only servers to further PROVE
>KBW > you're psychologically UNABLE to be
>KBW > honest, except by accident, force, or
>KBW > if you believe you can promote a lie.
>
>G. Res Judicata 1. Already conceded to Kent's argument
>
>Claim that asking for a LINK PROVES insult XYZ
>Added to the list.

Your list is little more than your own drug induced fantasy. If
you believe posting that which you KNOW does not apply, unless you're
holding yourself to the standards, so be it.

>
>KBW > The only way it could be expunged is if it existed.
>
>G > I have never had an OWI or DWI in any state, anywhere.
>
>KBW > Then why did you present that it was to have been expunged?
>
>Flat out lie, perhaps also a bit of Kent Wills stock deception G 1.
>

Refer to the truth by any term that makes you feel more
comfortable, Greg.

>KBW > Why did you connect it to your court
>KBW > ordered rehab when NO ONE else
>KBW > suggested the two should be connected?
>
>Fiction, perhaps also G 1 on my list of Kent Wills stock deceptions.
>

You did connect the two. No amount of your LYING now will ever
alter this truth.
If you'd like, I'll post the MID for the post. Yes, I'll suspend
my requirement about the pictures for this instance.
Let me know if you want it, or if you would rather prove yourself
the lying coward you were, are, and likely will be.

>G > You made up text to look like an OWI record.
>
>KBW > I made up nothing.
>
>You claimed you went to the "records office"
>and obtained this OWI record, after you
>claimed it was expunged.

Liar.

>Said ""records office""
>doesn't have that name and is not for public
>walk-in perusal of records.

That you're reduced to arguing semantics only further PROVED how
incredibly DESPERATE you are to avoid the TRUTH regarding your
conviction for OWI.

>The Department of
>Criminal Investigation office at the phone number
>you titled "Criminal Records" would have sold
>you copies of the records COMPLETE with
>CASE NUMBERS don't you think?

Just like last time, IF I wanted psychical copies, they most
probably would have. I didn't want psychical copies. This means they
didn't sell me any.
How is it that you are so completely UNABLE to understand this
simple premise?

>
>KBW > You are stupid.
>
>CRIMINAL COMPLAINT 04/10/1996
>Comments: CT 1 OWI 1ST
>OTHER CITATION 04/10/1996
>Comments: CT 2 SPEED
>Disposition Status
>GUILTY PLEA/DEFAULT
>

Do you think editing out your name and date of birth will some
how make the conviction vanish from history?

>G > If you cut and pasted the record as you pretend,
>G > how did you miss the CASE NUMBER?
>
>KBW > When did I claim it was a C&P?
>
>G > You didn't need to CLAIM it was C & P.
>G > You posted it in text form in usenet.
>
>KBW > You present that I did.
>
>Kent, You posted it with leading spaces!

Which, as I've already explained, does not support your claim
that it's a C&P.
You are stupid.

>
>KBW > Another of your MANY pathological LIES
>KBW > has been exposed. If only
>KBW > you were able to put a little effort into them.
>
>G > You posted it in text form in usenet.
>
>KBW > Do you propose there is another means to post to Usenet?
>
>Leading spaces, from text you say you wrote down?

Yes. As you already know (you're replying to the post when I
proved my comment), when I typed the information into the sig, I
inserted the spaces.

>
>KBW > I mentioned, a few times, that while
>KBW > at the records office, I WROTE DOWN
>KBW > the information.
>
>G > Got a LINK to where you mentioned this a few times?
>G > I don't think so.
>
>KBW > Yes. See above.
>
>G 2 and H 3 on Kent Wills stock deception list.
>
>G >You repeatedly paint yourself into corners with your lies.
>
>KBW > Yet you must LIE in order to present that I've lied.
>
>G > There is no such thing as a
>G > "state records office", is there, Kent?
>
>KBW > Criminal Records
>KBW > 215 E 7th St Des Moines, IA 50319
>KBW > p (515) 725-6066 f (515) 725-6073
>
>http://www.dps.state.ia.us/DCI/supportoperations/crimhistory/obtain_records.shtml
>
>You claimed "records office" and then "Criminal Records"
>but the phone number is for Division of Criminal Investigation.

When your reduced to arguing semantics, you prove how weak your
position really is, Greg. Not that it hasn't always been obvious.

>
>They do criminal background checks for media and employers,
>but they only do this by way of US Mail or fax.
>It's not a walk in walk out service.

Again, please prove your claim, unless it's a lie.
Oh wait, you didn't prove your claim, which means, by YOUR
standards, you are admitting you lied.

>You'd have to pay $13-15 and you obtain documents.

If you want physical copies.

>You claimed you walked in there and copied it down.

Yep. And you've offered nothing to counter the truth in my
claim.

>
>KBW > Are you really so STUPID that you suppose
>KBW > they maintain an empty building, Greg?
>
>Complete non sequitur Kent attempts to blame on his opponent.
>What a spaz.

Where do I try to blame you for anything, Greg? Your attempt to
be a victim isn't going to work.

>
>KBW > If you would just be honest, you wouldn't
>KBW > get caught LYING so often, Greg. Sadly,
>KBW > you are psychologically UNABLE to be
>KBW > honest with any intent, unless you think
>KBW > intentional honesty will promote a lie
>KBW > you're presenting.
>
>You repeat that a lot. It's starting to look
>like you are describing yourself in a projection.

You present the same lies, so naturally the method by which you
are PROVED to have lied will be very similar. Occasionally the method
will be the same.

>
>KBW > I also find it of interest that you claim
>KBW > my consistently exposing your LIE about
>KBW > who I am means that I must be that person,
>KBW > since only that person would devote so
>KBW > much time to disproving the claim.
>
>It's not much trouble at all!
>I don't even post the entire dossier.
>There is no need because you are so thoroughly ID'd.

Not to the rational mind. But then, the mental defects you
display on-line aren't an act.

>
>KBW > You exert a great deal of time and energy
>KBW > trying to distance yourself from a conviction
>KBW > for OWI you are now claiming isn't yours.
>
>You are nailed down with official
>and public records with LINKS.

I do?

>
>You tried a phony OWI which anybody
>with a text editor could have made.
>WITH NO CASE NUMBER! LOL

I've done no such thing.

>
>KBW > Going so far as to use a
>KBW > deceptive innuendo in the form of a question.
>
>Lacking quote, link or specifics. Vague.

Again, you do that as well.
Do you think a C&P of a previous post that contains information
already proved wrong helps you in any way?
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: Kent and the walk in ""records office"" / ""Criminal Records"" / DCI phone number
Next: Kent and the ""Records Office""