On Sun, 13 Apr 2008 08:25:29 -0700 (PDT), Greegor
<Greegor47@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>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?
Again, you are alone in your belief that an attached garage is
not a part of the residence.
How many times will you need to be told this until you
understand?
>
>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!
Why are you stalking and harassing past and current members of
alt.friends? I've asked this question of you MANY times, and you have
so far REFUSED to answer, preferring to play the avoidance game
instead.
"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 Hanson telling Usenet he's a FOUNDED child abuser.
Message-ID: <35120b16.0401111639.6825febd@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
|
