From: Kent Wills on
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



>G > How old would that person be?
>G > Kent claimed the person was 6 or 7 years old.
>G > What YEAR was that?
>
>DJS3 > So you molested Kristen Walkins over a period of years?
>
>G > Did you think that asking dishonest questions
>G > (loaded) would get you the answers you want?
>
>DJS3 > Only if you RUN AWAY to avoid answering the questions, grag.
>
>You ask hostile, loaded questions and
>I answer them,

Where do you answer Dan's question regarding your sexual
molestation of Kristen Watkins?

>but you RUN like hell

Your questions have been asked by you and answered fully. The
"RUN" as you dishonestly call it, is simply not answering you AFTER
they been answered.
Some of your questions have been answered many times over the
years. Same question, same answer, and still you LIE and claim they
haven't. You'll do so even when answers are in the same thread you ask
yet again.
My favorite is when you screw up and quote the answers when you
ask. You don't do it often, but it's a lot of fun, at least for me,
on those occasions when you do.

>when I ask you questions, so here are
>some of them again.

Why do you ask the same questions so many times AFTER they've
been answer, and LIE about them being answered, Greg?

>
>When in the process of marriage and making BABIES
>did you find out your ex-wife was BIPOLAR, Dan?
>

Why the hostility in your question, Greg? Is it, as you've
tacitly admitted, by YOUR standards, your jealousy?

>WHY did you make BABIES with a BIPOLAR woman?

Why not? Is there research you can cite that shows, causally,
that it is conclusively hereditary? The answer is no.
Is Bi-polar disorder manageable with medication? The answer is
yes.
Are there degrees of it so slight as to be inconsequential in the
life of the person and those around them?
Is there something about it that frightens you? Your own family
history, perhaps, that you are so focused on this question?
What, by the way, is bad in your estimation about bi-polar
disorder?
Do you know that your posting, your way of writing, your
expository interrogations, tend toward that very behavior? It's
certainly not enough to make any sort of diagnosis, but it can, and
does, give reason to wonder.

>
>Do you think normal men would marry a
>BIPOLAR woman and make BABIES with her?

Do you think they wouldn't? Are you suggesting Dan is not
'normal?'
What, by the way, defines normal for you, in humans?

>
>What lunatic asylum were you in when you
>met your bipolar ex-wife, Dan?
>

Hostile presumption in the question that Dan was in and met his
wife in a "lunatic asylum." A term, by the way, that is highly
bigoted.
Did you mean to reveal what a bigot you are? Yes, it's accepted
that you are a bigot, as you PROVED with your racial slur about my
deceased first wife, but still.

>You have talked up your 20+ Child Abuse

Liar.

>Investigations and your 5 FOUNDEDS, one
>of which was for Child Sexual Abuse.

And with it, which you refuse to acknowledge because doing so
would require you to be honest, he defeated CPS every single time. Or
they withdrew before pursuing their 'case.' This is why he had custody
of his children and never lost it.

>Didn't it ever occur to you that a guy who
>married a BIPOLAR woman and made
>BABIES with her might make people
>suspicious just because of that alone?

People like you, possibly.
Normal, rational, mentally sound, decent people with a conscience
and free of bigotry? No.

>
>Is your current wife, Susan a mental case, too?
>

Presumes he's married and has a wife named Susan. Can you prove
this presumption? If so provide your proof with links. If it's
another of your lies, you'll not be able to support, let alone prove,
your presumption.
And proving that someone named Dan Sullivan has a wife named
Susan won't work. You must offer the proof that the Dan Sullivan we
know from Usenet has a wife named Susan.

>Why were you in that place where
>you met your ex-wife?

Presumes he was. And you accuse others of hostile manipulative
questioning?
Pot. Kettle. Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson.
While I'm writing, why did you state you are Piggly Wiggly, Greg?
I recall asking you this as soon as I saw your reply to your own post
calling yourself Piggly Wiggly, but you didn't answer.

>
>Wasn't that a blow to your EGO when
>the bank foreclosed on your home?

The question presumes, even demands, that one accept that it was
his home, and that it was foreclosed on. The home in question, in the
sources YOU provided shows this home to have sold and not from a
foreclosure list.
In fact in the details list there is a check off where one uses,
if I recall correctly, a 1 to indicate yes, and 0 to indicate no. Zero
was the entry on the space for foreclosure.
Ignoring for the moment that I was able to PROVE the Dan we know
isn't the one about whom you've been so obsessed, the very links you
offer PROVE you the liar you are.

>
>With your huge EGO,

Presumes such a state not in evidence. Having knowledge, using it
successfully, sharing it with others facing the same or similar
challenge to help them recover and prevail isn't ego. It's helpful and
considerate.
What was your motive for attacking EVERY family that posted to
ASCPS with a child custody CPS dispute? You asked them hostile
manipulative questions, didn't you Greg -- didn't you?
Speak right up.
If I were a betting man, I'd put $10,000.00 that you really
regret motivating me to read all of Kane's posts on Google, along with
many of the replies.
There they were, some of them, their children taken, desperate to
find someone that could help and offer good suggestions. You, as the
CPS shill you've been PROVED to be, were interrogating them about why
they didn't refuse to let workers into their home. How hostile would
that be if YOU were asked that question?
Oh wait, you are right you caught Dan being hostile though not
manipulative. I wonder if it was payback time for you, Greg, for all
the harm you did to families with the same questions.
Dan asked you why you let them take the girl. YOU have asked
families why THEY let the authorities take their child without a
warrant, didn't you?
Dan's questions of families, from what I've casually read,
consisted of asking for information that could actually be used to
recover the child, and worked in a number of cases you try deny or
minimize where Dan and the family did win.
Your questions were such that the information wouldn't be used
for that, but in fact was used by you to both attack the family and to
advise them top do things that would keep the child IN custody longer,
risking complete loss of the child eventually. Isn't that true?
You know full well it is.
You contributed, didn't you, to the loss of children to the
system. You have consistently shown you want CPS to win, Greg. You
are nothing but a CPS shill.
What was your position on the Christine family before they went
to the use of lethal weapons, Greg? You were in contact with the
Oregon people advising them, weren't you? You claimed you were,
though it's possible you were lying.
What would your advice have been to them? In fact didn't you give
advice either directly or through their Oregon contacts?
It's been very interesting studying that case, and with it being
summer and The Princess wanting to be with her friends at Day Care, I
have A LOT of free time to study.
Your involvement, your connections and the prison sentences the
Christines are serving because of that kind of advice. Advice that you
foster and promote at EVERY chance.
Know anyone who was helped by Dan who ended up in jail because of
it? Anyone at all?

>how come you
>didn't keep it paid up?

Hostile presumption it was his home, something you've failed to
prove while I PROVED it was not.
Do you know how common the name Daniel Sullivan is on Long
Island? A quick check shows four Dan Sullivans listed. There is no
way to know how many more are there but don't have their numbers and
addresses listed. It could be zero, of course, but then, it could be
100.

>
>What happened to your nice cushy job, Dan?
>

You have proof of what his job was? Let's see it.

>How could that be when you claimed to
>be SELF EMPLOYED?

Interesting that when you make a presumption you DEMAND it be
accepted as fact, but question what Dan says as not.
When did Dan say he had a nice cushy job, Greg. Unless you've
been caught in a lie, you'll post the MID and/or Google link.

>
>Couldn't your wife Susan's job make the payments?

You presume Dan is currently married and to a woman named Susan.
You presume facts not in evidence.

>
>You tried to blame it onto the collapse
>of the SUB PRIME mortgage industry.

You already admitted he made no such claim, Greg. In fact, it was
YOU who made that claim.
You do this frequently. You'll post some sort of lie, then claim
the person who has made you look the fool you are presented the claim.
Given the frequency with which this act of deception from you has
been exposed, I ask, why do you keep using it?

>
>Then you tried to say it wasn't foreclosed.

You tried to claim it was and provided the proof it wasn't. Show
the link again if you like, and read along with us how it said, in the
details list, Foreclosure? 0
A 1 was "one foreclosure," just like the line 'Number of
bathrooms? 3'
Zero means none.
You're so stupid you actually offered the PROOF that you lied all
by yourself. You are stupid!

>
>Please assert again that you voluntarily
>sold your house on Sept 17, 2009, at
>the WORST possible time to sell a house.
>

Please provide the MID and/or Google link to a post of Dan's
where he asserts what you claim he does. He did neither as you know.
He did not say he sold or that he didn't sell it. But he was laughing
the whole time he answered you, honestly and fully, while you claim he
ran. What a liar you are.

>You tried to justify this by saying the house
>was worth more than the mortgage said!

No he didn't. You asked him if this was the case.

>If true, then you are a dumbass for thinking
>it was smart to dump the house.
>

But, dullard, that does not prove IT WAS HIS. That's your delusion and
his source of laughter, I expect.

>You are a strategic genius, in your mind.

Compared to you, a banana slug is a genius, Greg.

>
>I see that redeeming cans and bottles brings
>in 5c a can in NY. Why didn't you try that?

In need of a partner and can't find any little girls to FORCE
into dumpsters, Greg?

>Did your EGO get the best of you, Dan?

You're making less and less sense each day, Greg.
You are stupid.


A select number of items that really are about Gregory Scott "Piggly
Wiggly" Hanson (either directly or through the same standards he
DEMANDS be held to others):

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

As of Saturday, March 27, 2010:

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 from Ed Polkers. 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.

As of Saturday, March 27, 2010:
Financials
Title: STATE OF IOWA VS HANSON, GREG SCOTT
Case: 06571 AGCR015216 (LINN)
Citation Number:

Summary Orig Paid Due
COSTS 9200.00 850.00 8350.00
FINE 500.00 500.00 0.00
SURCHARGE 150.00 150.00 0.00
RESTITUTION 0.00 0.00 0.00
OTHER 0.00 0.00 0.00

$9850.00 $1500.00 $8350.00

Yes, Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson still owes over
$8000.00 related to his convictions for BEATING his ex-wife.

Me: Hey, he used your standards.
Gregory Scott "Piggly Wiggly" Hanson: It's textbook psychopathic
reasoning.

Greg admitting his standards are psychopathic.
From: Kent Wills on
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

>KBW > At one time, not so long ago, ex-con (one conviction for OWI
>
>G > Kent made a fake record with no CASE NUMBER.
>
>KBW > Liar.
>
>G > Post the case number then!
>
>KBW > Someday I'll go back to the records office
>KBW > and get it.
>
>G > You also said it was expunged.
>
>DJS3 > I don't recall seeing that.
>
>DJS3 > Got a LINK, grag?
>
>http://groups.google.com/group/alt.support.child-protective-services/msg/1bbea4aa525e83c2
>


Context restored at no additional cost.
Are you really so screwed up from the illegal drugs you thought
your deceptive altering of the context would slip by?


>[...]
> You already admitted your court ordered rehab was to have
>resulted in your conviction being expunged. At least by YOUR
>standards.
> I asked you if this was the case, and since you ran and HID, you
>made the tacit admission, by YOUR standards, that this was and is the
>case.
>[...]
>

Acknowledging YOUR admission isn't the same as making the claim,
Greg. Not to the mentally sound mind.
YMMV, of course.
Please note where I wrote that I asked you if this was the case.
ASKED if this was the case.
Since this lie of yours has been exposed, please offer the link
Dan requested, unless you wish to admit there is no such link since
I've made no such claim.
Also, offering the means for anyone with an interest to PROVE you
the LIAR you are probably isn't the wisest move you could have made.

>G > If this fictional record had been expunged,
>G > it would not be at the "records office"
>G > (courthouse).
>
>DJS3 > It's not fictional and you're lying, grag?
>
>I have no court record of OWI and
>no court record ordering me to rehab.

You do have a conviction for OWI. According to you, it was to
have been expunged when you completed the court ordered rehab.
If, as you have presented to be the case, it was to have been
expunged, then your claim of no court record would be accurate. Not
in the highly DISHONEST way in which you present it, but still
accurate.

>
>When REAL, such records are open
>and online for Iowa, WITH case numbers!

Not if they have been expunged, as you presented was to have been
the case with your OWI.

>
>So Kent came up with the "expunged" gambit.

Liar.

>
>Almost as funny as his "secret Google archive" story!

You made the claim, not me.