tjab > And yet notwithstanding the fact that it
tjab > doesn't make sense to you, Kent Bradley
tjab > Wills was convicted by a jury of his peers.
tjab > Doesn't it just make you weep?
1. Property was all in kid's posession (questionable)
2. Ring missing from inside car (questionable)
3. Kent's explanation of why he was in the area (mystery)
Why weren't these arguments used in the
appeal to the Iowa Supreme Court?
Why appeal using the lame argument that he had inadequate
representation because the attorney would not
argue that an attached garage is not part of a residence?
This would not have been half as much fun if Kent
had just acknowledged this Felony record.
Kent's raging denial and the enlisted stooges make it much more fun!
KW > Why are you stalking and harassing past
KW > and current members of alt.friends?
Why did you raise such STUPID issues and
bypass more logical issues in your appeal, Kent?
