KW > It's amazing how much you know of incarseration.
KW > Oh, that's right, you [actually] got
KW > [incarcerated] for beating your then current wife.
G > Why has your spelling fallen off so badly, Kent?
KW > As I've stated, many times, I'm a poor speller.
KW > It's very old news. Why are you focusing on
KW > that rather than addressing the point I raised,
KW > that you know so much about being locked
KW > up because you were locked up
KW > for beating your wife?
You forget she was convicted also, I was a countercharge.
You STILL pretend you were not incarcerated.
Nice try.
KRP > You make much of Greg's MISDEMEANORS
KRP > yet you seem to want to ignore your own
KRP > coniction for a FELONY. WHy is that Kunt?
Kent's Birthday is important to check government records.
http://www.pcpages.com/altfriends/bday.html
13 Kent Wills (Your Webmaster) Jan 8, 1969 compuelf at gmail
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT B WILLS WILLS, KENT BRADLEY 01/08/1969
DEFENDANT
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS WILLS, KENT BRADLEY
01/08/1969 DEFENDANT
05771 STAN201670 STATE OF IOWA vs WILLS, KENT BRADLEY WILLS, KENT
BRADLEY 01/08/1969 DEFENDANT
05771 STAN210929 STATE OF IOWA vs WILLS, KENT BRADLEY WILLS, KENT
BRADLEY 01/08/1969 DEFENDANT
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT B WILLS WILLS, KENT BRADLEY 01/08/1969
DEFENDANT
05771 SCSC310505 SWEENEY RENTALS VS KENT WILLS WILLS, KENT
DEFENDANT
05771 SCSC335210 CITI FINANCIAL VS KENT WILLS WILLS, KENT
DEFENDANT
05771 SCSC374163 SFI F SCHERLE PRESIDENT/RICHARD BURGESS VS KENT
WILLS WILLS, KENT DEFENDANT
05771 SCSC374164 SFI F SCHERLE III PRESIDENT/RICHARD BURGESS VS KENT
WILLS WILLS, KENT DEFENDANT
IN PRINT:
> West's North Western Reporter
> Second Series
> A Unit of the National Reporter System
> Volume 696 N.W.2d
>
> Cite as 696 N.W.2d 20 (Iowa 2005)
>
> STATE of Iowa, Appellee
> v.
> Kent Bradley Wills
>
> No. 04-0202
> Supreme Court of Iowa
> May 6, 2005
http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-02=
02.asp?search=3D+Kent+Wills+#_1
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF IOWA
No. 31 / 04-0202
Filed May 6, 2005
STATE OF IOWA,
Appellee,
vs.
KENT BRADLEY WILLS,
Appellant.
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/TrialSimpFrame
Kent Wills
http://www.doc.state.ia.us/InmateInfo.asp?OffenderCd=3D1155768
http://snipurl.com/felun
Name Kent Bradley Wills Offender Number 1155768
Sex M Birth Date 01/08/1969 Age 39 Location Interstate Compact
Offense BURGLARY 2ND DEGREE County Of Commitment Polk
Commitment Date 01/16/2004 Duration TDD/SDD * 01/16/2009
* TDD =3D Tentative Discharge Date * SDD =3D Supervision Discharge Date
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk Probation C Felony
Polk
Supervision Status Offense Class County of Commitment End Date
Probation Aggravated Misdemeanor Polk 11/25/2003
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?court=3Dia&vol=3Dsc%5C20050=
506%5C04-0202&invol=3D1
http://tinyurl.com/2n229g
Google archive of the findlaw document
http://64.233.167.104/search?q=3Dcache:6mvDMR00ZsQJ:caselaw.findlaw.com/scri=
pts/getcase.pl%3Fcourt%3Dia%26vol%3Dsc%255C20050506%255C04-0202%26invol%3D1+=
kent+wills+iowa+burglary&hl=3Den&ct=3Dclnk&cd=3D2&gl=3Dus
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.
KENT B WILLS 39
ANKENY, IA ( 3 addresses )
ROGERS, AR
MARSHALLTOWN, IA ( you mentioned living there)
HANOVER PARK, IL ( 2 addresses )
VILLA PARK, IL
BARTLETT, IL
TIFFANY J WILLS ( Kent's sister(husband Bill) Springdale Arkansas )
JANET RAE WILLS
FREDERICK ALFRED WILLS
FRED WILLS (I laughed about the different Freds)
FREDRIC A WILLS
KELLY M WILLS
http://www.judicial.state.ia.us/Supreme_Court/Recent_Opinions/20050506/04-02=
02.asp?search=3D+Kent+Wills+#_1
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
=A7 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. =A7 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.
http://home.comcast.net/~kaldis/Xns996259.txt
Path: bgtnsc04-news.ops.worldnet.att.net!wnmaster12!wn13feed!
worldnet.att.net!216.196.98.141!border2.nntp.dca.giganews.com!
border1.nntp.dca.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!
local01.nntp.dca.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 02:46:16 -0500
Newsgroups: alt.fan.bob-larson,alt.law-enforcement,misc.legal
Subject: You wanted information about Kent Bradley Wills?
From: Doc Savage <xxxrabbis@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Organization: Who, moi?
Message-ID: <Xns9962593A68673Doc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
User-Agent: Xnews/5.04.25
Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 02:46:17 -0500
Lines: 280
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-g9k+lpZkZTB0PdHxmkMB8peH/NJmgawPMG5j
+YfjKtLsC5MEdAtpKYpvhawEcEpA49gJBwEqhUVT9W8!
r6UL6tcH4l3tDZxNmw48T3tAWw7lmFpEQNRFhd1Yp1WmxQH0o270WCpLBFQ7mE4=3D
X-Complaints-To: abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your
complaint properly
X-Postfilter: 1.3.35
Bytes: 11367
X-Original-Bytes: 11323
misc.legal:443517
X-Received-Date: Tue, 03 Jul 2007 07:47:37 GMT (bgtnsc04-
news.ops.worldnet.att.net)
Here ya go. All public information
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/SelectFrame
Click on Trial Court Case Search on the right
That opens the input dialogue page. You may be able to go straight
to
it from this link, or it may be my cache opening the page
http://www.iowacourts.state.ia.us/ESAWebApp/TrialSimpFrame
Type Wills Kent Bradley in the top boxes, it doesn't matter if you
capialise or not, then hit the search button
The search returns four hits
05771 FECR145250 STATE VS KENT B WILLS WILLS KENT 01/08/1969
DEFENDANT
05771 FECR176876 STATE VS KENT BRADLEY WILLS WILLS KENT 01/08/1969
DEFENDANT
05771 STAN201670 STATE OF IOWA vs WILLS, KENT BRADLEY WILLS KENT
01/08/1969 DEFENDANT
05771 STAN210929 STATE OF IOWA vs WILLS, KENT BRADLEY WILLS KENT
01/08/1969 DEFENDANT
05771 SWCR177169 STATE VS KENT B WILLS 01/08/1969 DEFENDANT
Reading through these shows that Kent served time in Fort Des Moines
and
it looks like he also served 100 days in the county slammer.
I'm not sure about US Law, and I forgot to ask when I last posted in
us.legal, but doesn't serving time in Ft Des Moines mean that you can
never teach school in the US?
For the record, you can reverse search for Kenny through his parents
names. They are Frederick (Fred) Alfred (A) Wills, and Janet Rae (R)
Wills, who owned 202 NW College Ave Ankeny Ia50021-2136
That isn't totally accurate. Fred bought the place, but Fred and
Janet
sold it, despite Kennys claims that he bought and sold it.
There are also planning permit applications listed in various
newspapers, purchase of a new duplex in Rogers, committee minutes and
reports, engagement and wedding announcements. I have around 400
pages
of stuff.
Kents birthday. Search alt.friends using the dates January 7 and 8.
He's made no secret of it over the years.
Just for fun, here's part of an email I got back from the Iowa DOC
when
I asked a few questions about his claim to have falsified the court
records. It's easy done, and they're very open if you are polite,
but
be sure your personal details are verifiable when they check on you.
-----Original Message-----
From: Olson, Fay [DOC] On Behalf Of Information, DOC
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 8:02 AM
To: Lauterbach, Charles [DOC]
Subject: FW: One of your probationers
Importance: High
Kent Bradley Wills, #1155768.Would you please respond to this e-mail
(from the DOC web site). Thank you. Fay
The phone number for the Arkansas Department of Corrections compact
office is (501)682-9584.
<snip info which I can't legally post>
--------------------------------------
It certainly looks like they know you in Iowa Kenny.
I also received this one;
----- Original Message -----
From: "Lauterbach, Charles [DOC]" <Charles.Lauterbach@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
To:
Cc: "Hornocker, Jan [DOC]" <Jan.Hornocker@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>;
<ardccic@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Sent: Tuesday, August 15, 2006 3:33 PM
Subject: RE: Probationer Kent Bradley Wills IA # 1155768
Janice- Please see message below FYI.
Wills is being supervised in the State of Arkansas. The phone number
for
the Arkansas Department of Corrections compact office is
(501)682-9584.
<snip more information>
------------------------------------
And then the Arkansas DOC sent me this one. LOL, I got a gagging
order
issued against Wills for lying and making anti semitic commentary.
ardccic[at]arkansas[dot]gov
-----Original Message-----
From: Mary Towner
Sent: Tuesday, August 29, 2006 4:38 PM
To: AR DCC Interstate Compact
Cc: Vince Morris
Subject: FW: Probationer Kent Bradley Wills IA # 1155768
Subject: FW: Probationer Kent Bradley Wills IA # 1155768
PPO Mike Markum and I met with Kent Wills this day at the probation
office. Respecting confidentiality for all concerned, this matter has
been resolved as follows: Kent Bradley Wills has been advised to
cease
contact of any kind related to, or with, Rabbi Goldblum. If Wills
disobeys this directive, do not hesitate to contact us.
-----------------------------------------------------
>>all, then forged the Appellate Ruling which DENIED his appeal as being
>>without merit ?
>>
>
> I made no such forgery.
>
Oh, naughty naughty Kent. Wash your mouth with soapy water.
Path:
border1.nntp.ams.giganews.com!nntp.giganews.com!newshub2.home.nl!
newshub1.home.nl!home.nl!skynet.be!newsfeed.news2me.com!
newshub.sdsu.edu!newscon04.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.net!
newsdst01.news.prodigy.net!prodigy.com!postmaster.news.prodigy.com!
newssvr29.news.prodigy.net.POSTED!86707a39!not-for-mail
From: Kent Wills <compuelf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Newsgroups: alt.friends
Subject: Re: FFS
Organization: None that I know about.
Reply-To: compuelf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
<1hshd21ctmf8g2pqg7abnmeateufents5e@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
References: <op.tdvj1zq7wabk2w@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<jlecd29jmeup0qjp7p3av4o4rok8qnhs6j@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<op.tdvmb5pwwabk2w@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> <Xns981835E8640C0Doc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<hcOdnRAPS7DYYUvZRVnyhQ@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<13cfd25fvdrpq1qmim9cq5jlbco26cv0l8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<Xns981935407422Doc@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
<44d87cee$0$17975$892e7fe2@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 2.0/32.652
X-No-Archive: yes
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=3Dus-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Lines: 77
NNTP-Posting-Host: 69.152.199.248
X-Complaints-To: abuse@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
newssvr29.news.prodigy.net 1155070394 ST000 69.152.199.248
(Tue, 08
Aug 2006 16:53:14 EDT)
NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 08 Aug 2006 16:53:14 EDT
X-UserInfo1:
SCSGW_[DXBRYSTXXHBCBNWX@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Tue, 08 Aug 2006 20:53:14 GMT
I have it on good authority that on Tue, 8 Aug 2006 07:01:23 -0500,
"TNKev" <serviceadvisor@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>Doc Savage wrote:
>> Kent Wills <compuelf@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in
>> news:13cfd25fvdrpq1qmim9cq5jlbco26cv0l8@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>>
>
>
>ROTFLMAO!
>
>no way, not Kent!
>
Why not? I mean, I can break into cars... Um... Do they still
make black jacks for things like that?
Short version:
About a year ago some of the IT guys with the Fifth Judicial
District in Des Moines, Iowa helped me set a trap for Doc. While I
was certain he found it, I presumed his lack of mentioning it meant he
saw it for the trap it was and disregarded it.
Some of the clues that the information is bogus:
1) The two felonies listed are both 10 year felonies. The
misdemeanor is a five year sentence (though probation is permitted for
first time offenders under Iowa's sentencing laws -- the first time
offender bit will become more important later on).
Even if served concurrently, it's a 10 year sentence. Iowa
law requires a minimum of one third of a sentence be served before the
offender is *eligible* to see the parole board. Being granted an
interview with the board doesn't mean the offender will get parole.
A minimum of three and one third years in prison would have to
have been served. Try to find a three year gap in my posting history.
2) It takes a bit of digging, but the address listed as my
place of residence is a closed and abandoned hotel in Ankeny. I
haven't lived in Ankeny, regardless of location, since 1998.
3) A previous felony conviction is listed (this is why the
first time offender bit was and is important as it means probation was
NOT an option). Under Iowa's Three Strikes and You're Out law, a
third felony means a MINIMUM of 25 years in prison. Again, Iowa law
requires one third of the sentence be served before the offender is
allowed to seek parole.
That's roughly eight and one third years. I've been on Usenet
since 1993. I encourage everyone to find an eight year gap in my
posting history.
4) Let's pretend I somehow managed to con probation out of the
judge (in violation of Iowa's sentencing laws -- one of the felonies
is Using a Juvenile to Commit and Indictable Offence which is
MANDATORY prison time). I went to Aruba in February. Scans of some
of the pictures (including the TSA luggage tag, my passport stamp
showing entry and exit dates, and so on) can be seen at:
http://www.geocities.com/compuelf/aruba2006
The best image is the TSA tag. It's a Federal felony to forge
one. Either it's legitimate, or I'm one cocky guy.
TSA would know if I was on probation, and I wouldn't have been
allowed to go to South America, since there's no guaranty I would
return to finish my sentence.
There's more, but I discussed this to death in misc.legal. If
anyone wants to know the rest (part of it involves a name Doc posted
under in this very group), E-mail me and I'll let you know.
- - -
Kent
If Mama ain't happy, ain't nobody happy.
If Daddy ain't happy, don't nobody care!
There was an earlier article in the trial discussion when Kenny
claimed
he had the trial data posted for Theo, but I'll let that little slip
pass for now.
With a little bit of digging and reading Peter Huckers replies to
Kents
posts in alt.friends, anyone can find the claim he made about carrying
a
=2E32 cal handgun in his pickup.
That was right after Kent lied about the age of the juvenile he took
out
burglarizing garages and parked cars at 1am, and all for what? An
electronic pocket organiser, a diamond ring and $20 in change.
On the subject of wives and kids, why are there no listings for
Richard
and why can nobody in the Iowa Justice system find any references to
any
psychologist named Lindsay? LOL, I rented out rooms to a retired US
Circuit Court Judge who tutored in US Law when I was at Cambridge.
I can find recent listings and records for Amy D Wills, Samantha T
Wills
and Kelly M Wills all sharing some of the same addresses as you, your
parents and your sister Tiffany, but even a professional search
failed
to turn up any evidence of there ever being a wife named Lindsay and
a
son named Richard.
How can you tell Wills is lying?
His lips are moving and his hand is near a computer keyboard.
http://home.comcast.net/~kaldis/KBW.htm
BOGUS Boarding Pass!
The above is a scanned image that had been posted to a website by Kent
Wills, ostensibly of a boarding pass which he supposedly used for
travel to Aruba. It is the belief of some (a belief that will be
confirmed here shortly) that the above image is actually a forgery.
Moreover, there is substantive reason to doubt that Kent Wills ever
went to Aruba. Kent is apparently a convicted felon in Iowa, and he is
currently serving a term of probation for his conviction of a garage
burglary in Ankeny-a town that he concedes he once lived in.
For more information about Kent's case, his conviction, and his lies
you can click HERE for a record on FindLaw of his Iowa Supreme Court
appeal of his case. You can also click HERE for a copy of a USENET
message that has some useful information about Kent.
As a convicted felon currently under probation, it is extremely
unlikely that Kent would be granted permission to travel outside the
country-just as it is even more unlikely that a foreign country would
grant him entrance.
What is notable about the above boarding pass is that, as it was
posted by Kent himself (ostensibly of one that he had used), it
positively establishes that his true and full name is "Kent Bradley
Wills"-a name that he now wishes to deny is his, as it has been
discovered that "Kent Bradley Wills" is a convicted felon in Iowa.
But there is some information on the above image that reveals it
beyond question to be a forgery. You will note that the seat is listed
as "4D". This would have been a first class seat on that aircraft-and
indeed Kent mendaciously asserts that he traveled first class. The
equipment (type of aircraft) that was used by Delta for this flight at
the time was a Boeing 757. This aircraft has six rows of first-class
seats (four in each row, two on each side of the aisle).
But the class of travel on the above boarding pass is "N", which is
not for first class travel. Rather, it is for "coach points award"
travel (i.e., travel in exchange for the redemption of frequent flyer
points). And it is non-upgradeable. Travel under this class of service
does not accrue any mileage points (Delta SkyMiles in this case), and
this is confirmed on this ticket itself. The ticket clearly states,
"No FF Credit" (i.e., "Frequent Flyer" points). For a further
explanation of this fare class, see:
http://cwsi.net/delta.htm
Please note the color code of the left-most column in the above page.
The color code is explained at the bottom. The fare class "N" appears
in a light green-blue box. At the bottom of the above page the
description for this color code indicates that this is a coach fare.
Finally, you should note that under the seat assignment, the above
forgery states "Zone 5". This is the zone that is called for boarding
of the flight. If this were truly a first class ticket, it would state
"Zone 1", as first class passengers are always called first for
boarding. This was probably a boarding pass for seat 14D in coach,
which would be an aisle seat in a 757, and would be in zone 5. Kent
apparently took someone else's used boarding pass, obliterated the
leading "1" and apparently changed the name to falsely indicate that
it was his ticket.
It is virtually certain that Kent forged his own name in place of the
real name that was originally on this ticket. Because aside from (or
even because of) the fact that he is a convicted felon under probation-
and would thus be unable to travel extensively-Kent is no frequent
flyer. Consequently, he would not have had the frequent flyer points
to redeem in exchange for this ticket.
|
