Dr. Dino Thread

[Gregg]

I really am wishing that some Judge somewhere loses his cookies over one of these maroons and deports him to Somalia where you do get to make up your own laws. And have a go at enforcing them, too.

[Paths of the Sea]

The Tax Court is a little slow in updating its docket; updating the Hovind docket history today regarding several actions.

It appears Dr. Dino (aka Kent Hovind) did file his response to the show cause order last month, and the Court has now, in response, denied the Government's motion and filed the following Order:

The U.S. Tax Court has just made entries to the Hovind docket indicated that he did file a response to the Court's show cause order. It does not give any indication as to the content of such response by Dr. Dino.

In respect thereto, the Court has entered the following ORDER:

----------------------------

UNITED STATES TAX COURT KVC
WASHINGTON, DC 20217

KENT HOVIND,
Petitioner,

v. ) Docket No. 4245-10.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent

O R D E R

Upon due consideration of petitioner's Response to the
Court's Order To Show Cause, dated February 2, 2011, it is
ORDERED that the Court's Order to Show Cause, dated
February 2, 2011, is hereby discharged.

(Signed) John O. Colvin
Chief Judge
Dated: Washington, D.C.
March 15, 2011

SERVED Mar 17 2011
---------------------
---------------------

Anybody here able to find out the details of what Dr. Dino had to say in his show cause response to the Court????

Could the Court proceed in evaluating Dr. Dino's response and still dismiss his case??

In the meantime, it appears his wife, Jo Hovind, is moving towards her trial date next month in Mobile, AL; being represented by what looks like a legitimate representative.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[Nikki]

Jo is throwing Kent under the bus

...
The Petitioner's case (Docket No. 1362-10) is based upon sound legal principles.

The Petitioner has obtained a copy of the Petition that Kent Hovind filed in Docket No. 4245 10 as well as an Order from that case dated September 20, 2010, in which the Court states in part, "... that the record in this case is replete with patently frivolous and groundless arguments by petitioner, acting by and through his counsel, Mr. Jerold W. Barringer".

This Petitioner does not want to be associated, combined or consolidated in a case where these types of arguments are made.

The legal positions of the respective Petitioners in these two (2) cases are completely different.
...
WHEREFORE, the Petitioner, Jo Delia Hovind, requests that this Court move the place of trial for this case to Mobile, Alabarna.

The Petitioner, Jo Delia Hovind, also requests that the Court not consolidate this case with Docket No. 4245-10 which has a different trial date, different legal issues (potentially frivolous) and a different place of trial than that requested by Petitioner in this case.

[Randall]

Sovereign defined: A Sovereign is a private, non-resident,
non-statutory person, non-individual person,

He is a group?

and having the status of and standing
in the shoes of those people who created government

and he stands in those shoes of dead people.

[Paths of the Sea]

Nikki,

Can you also review and reveal what it is that Dr. Dino is proposing in his response to the show cause order?

I'm not yet convinced that Jo is throwing Dr. Dino under the bus. It could be just all part of their joint tactics. It will be interesting to see if she does, in fact, split with Dr. Dino regarding specifics.

I figure the cases involve "whipsaw" issues that Jo can easily defeat as to her if she is open and honest and has testimony and/or records that might be detrimental to Dr. Dino's side of things.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

(Not a peep about the millions of dollars in civil, personal, income tax liaiblities he and his wife are facing in U.S. Tax Court.-Maury enthusiast!)

See:

http://www.drdino.com/legal/

Legal Update
Last Updated: March 24, 2011

We have purposefully waited to give a property update to our supporters, hoping to finalize details.

However, given the lengthy time since you have had an update, and with the property issues remaining unsettled, we felt a letter was in order.

To recap, in July of 2009, without even a hearing with the CSE attorney, Judge Rodgers ordered all property immediately transferred to the government.

This endorsed the prosecution’s declaration that there was actually no ministry, and that the “CSE entity” was nothing more than a dba for Kent Hovind personally.

We were informed that for $380,000, all the property could be repurchased by CSE.

We came to you as supporters asking for help and you responded in a huge way!

In just four weeks, we raised much of the funds necessary to purchase the property from the government.

These funds were placed in an escrow account pending the receipt of contracts from the Federal Government.

Then two months later on September 18, 2009, the IRS agents changed their demand and said that all property would have to be sold at “fair market value,” a value that would be determined by a government appraiser.

The government ordered appraisals on the property and required us to sign an occupancy agreement, which allowed us to stay on the property until the appraisals came in and a decision could be made on what we could purchase.

The downside to the agreement was that it made it possible for the government to give us a seven-day notice to vacate the property.

With this knowledge, the Board of Directors voted to close Dinosaur Adventure Land and move the ministry offices to a new location rather than risk being given a seven-day evacuation notice that could be delivered at the government’s slightest whim.

The ministry was able to rent a location just a few blocks away from the original property and it has worked out beautifully! We opened the Creation Store and the Mini Museum for visitors to come and see a few of the artifacts that we had at our old location. While this has worked out fine, we would love to have a little more room for our museum so that visitors can see and experience more of the wonderful things that declare God as our Creator!

After waiting seven months for the September 2009 government appraisal numbers, on March 5, 2010, the government informed us that the new purchase price to purchase the property that already belonged to Creation Science Evangelism would be $971,000!

Due to this tripled and outrageous price demand from the government, our Board of Directors decided that we should not go back to supporters, but rather negotiate with the government to see what we could purchase with the funds already raised.

In October of 2010, we negotiated with the government to secure two of the properties that made up Creation Science Evangelism and Dinosaur Adventure Land.

The others will be auctioned off in a public auction at a time yet to be determined. Not having these other properties has resulted in the permanent closing of Dinosaur Adventure Land at that location.

Now, in March 2011, after six months of going back and forth between our attorneys and the government, we still have no property contracts.

Currently, the money that was given to purchase property in order for CSE to continue operations remains in an escrow account.

Thank you for continuing to support us in prayer as we make difficult decisions and move forward in the property negotiations with the government.

In this spiritual battleground, God continues to win victories in men’s lives for eternity! Testimonies from literally all over the word arrive daily to give God the glory for hope and faith in Him that was presented through CSE efforts. We are humbled and amazed that God still uses us to bring men unto Him.

God remains at work in so many amazing ways! If you haven’t seen what we have been up to lately, you will be amazed at what God is able to accomplish in the midst of adversity! We are preparing a newsletter now that will go into a lot more detail, but in the meantime, feel free to look around the new drdino.com website. Browse the videos, check out the blogs, even debate with atheists! What better place to sharpen your evangelism skills!

On my behalf, our Board of Directors and the entire team here at Creation Science Evangelism, we say again, THANK YOU for making it possible for us to reach so many people with the Gospel through the Creation message!

All for HIS glory!
Eric and the CSE Team

---------------------
---------------------

[notorial dissent]

Sounds like Fantasy Land to me!!!

[Samphire]

It's strange that Eric in his current update fails to mention Jo's & Kent's upcoming trials.

The issue of the sale of the properties seems to relate to the sums imposed by the court in the original trial. However, this is small beer compared to the sums currently being sued for by the IRS.

So even when the money raised by CSE's soft-brained supporters and held in the escrow account is utilised together with any balance of monies realised from the sale of the properties Jo & Kent will still be bankrupt. However, we don't know how much money was spirited away to the Embassy of Heaven and into the undoubtedly ever-trustful maw of Glen Stoll. Kent says that this money belongs to the Southern Baptist God so presumably he won't be able to utilise it to save himself from bankruptcy but, of course, it will be available (if found) to the CSE ministry at some appropriate future time. Those crazies who contributed to the Save Kent From Having to Pay His Own Bills Fund should be righteously upset to discover that their contributions may be paid over to the IRS in the futile hope that they would somehow save the Hovinds from the inevitable.

But what of the company set up by Eric to take over CSE's assets? Did it pay fair value for the copyright of those original but now ancient and yellowing "Seminar" tapes from which, presumably, Eric continues to scratch a living. The company was set up some 3 years ago so have any financial accounts yet been published and, if so, has anybody seen them? Which reminds me; what happened to the Winnebago that Kent owned pursuant to his Vow of Poverty? Has Eric successfully managed to hide it away until the IRS goes away?

I note that Eric now puffs himself up on his website with a claim that he has publicly spoken on "Creation and Dinosaws" over 3,500 times. As he has been at the game for less than 10 years his claim implies that he has spoken to audiences at least once every single day over this period. Having observed the cosmos-sized deserted spaces in his on-line Speaking Appointments diary I challenge the accuracy of his claim.

Finally, in the current letter Eric encourages his flock to follow his blog even to the extent of engaging in discussions with atheists. Now that's very difficult to do, Eric, when commenting has been turned off for the last three weeks.

[ArthurWankspittle]

....I note that Eric now puffs himself up on his website with a claim that he has publicly spoken on "Creation and Dinosaws" over 3,500 times. As he has been at the game for less than 10 years his claim implies that he has spoken to audiences at least once every single day over this period......

I'm sure it could be used as the basis to estimate his income if needed...

[Samphire]

I'm sure it could be used as the basis to estimate his income if needed...

Not necessarily. Eric insists on all his tax-free (presumably) "expenses" being paid by the mark - and his list of what qualifies as an expense is quite comprehensive - but a normal request for a wage, fee or emolument for his services is displaced by this request "A love offering or honorarium is greatly appreciated and helps keep our ministry influencing the most people as possible."

The description "free-loading, low-life scum" might come to the mind of some people - but not me.

However, I could allow that Eric might be the first human clone.

[Paths of the Sea]

I agree that it is most interesting that Dr. Dino has not publicly addressed, to my knowledge, any of the details regarding his and Jo's U.S. Tax Court trials and the millions in personal, civil, income tax liabilities involved.

Will Jo go to trial in a month?
WIll it be continued?
Will she work out a settlement without trial?
How will her proceedings impact on Dr. Dino?

Time is short. We will know before long!

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[LPC]

Who is this "we" that the Hovinds keep referring to?

Is it possible for Eric to a "we" with his father in prison?

Is Eric pregnant?

Real religious or charitable organizations have boards of trustees and publish the names of the trustees on their websites. The fact that the CSE website names only Kent Hovind and Eric Hovind speaks volumes.

[grixit]

Presumably, Pere et Fils keep in touch via Kneemail.

[Paths of the Sea]

Looks like the prospects of settling Jo's case have been exhausted or were never an option.

The Government has asked the Court to set a date and time certain in Jo's case.

That should be some time during the week of April 26, 2011 in Mobile, AL

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

UNITED STATES TAX COURT
WASHINGTON, DC 20217

JO DELIA HOVIND,
Petitioner,

v. ) Docket No. 1362-10.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent

O R D E R

On March 28, 2011, the Court filed respondent's motion for
date and time certain. In that motion the Court is advised that
petitioner does not object to the granting of respondent's
motion. For cause, it is

ORDERED that respondent's motion for date and time certain
is granted, and this case is set for trial at the Court' s April
26, 2011, Mobile, Alabama, trial session at a date and time
certain of Wednesday, April 27, 2011, at 9:00 a.m. in Courtroom
2C, 2"" Floor, United States District Court, United States
Courthouse, 113 St. Joseph Street, Mobile, Alabama 36602.

This Order constitutes official notice of the foregoing to the
parties.

(Signed) L. Paige Marvel
Judge
Dated: Washington, D.C.
March 31, 2011

--------------------------
--------------------------

[grixit]

Hovind should petition for release on the grounds that "date certain" means "never never".

[Paths of the Sea]

The Tax Court posted docket entries today indicating that both parties have filed their pre-trial memorandums.

Who here is going to be able to take a peek at those and let us know some of the details?

Two weeks and Jo Hovind will, hopefully, prosecute her case before the U.S. Tax Court in Mobile, AL.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[tracer]

....I note that Eric now puffs himself up on his website with a claim that he has publicly spoken on "Creation and Dinosaws" over 3,500 times. As he has been at the game for less than 10 years his claim implies that he has spoken to audiences at least once every single day over this period......

I'm sure it could be used as the basis to estimate his income if needed...

Ah, no no no no!

If Eric is only claiming that he has "publicly spoken" on Creation over 3500 times in the 10 years he's been at it, that could merely mean that he stands on a street corner and rants once a day.

[webhick]

If Eric is only claiming that he has "publicly spoken" on Creation over 3500 times in the 10 years he's been at it, that could merely mean that he stands on a street corner and rants once a day.

Odd, I was thinking that it amounted to a lot of conference call phone sex but your way works too.

[Paths of the Sea]

Recommendation - DENY, DENY, DENY!

Some action this week in Dr. Dino's Court:

This week's action in the Hovind criminal case:

-------------------------------------------

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

vs. Case No.: 3:06cr83/MCR
3:10cv487/MCR/EMT

KENT E. HOVIND

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION

(excerpts)

Defendant Kent Hovind filed a motion to vacate, set aside or correct his
sentence pursuantt to 28 U.S.C. § 2255 on November 24, 20101 (Doc. 361), which
he was directed to amend because it was not filed on the required form (Doc.
363). He filed an amended motion and supporting memorandum of law on December 9,
2010 (Docs. 364 & 365).

He subsequently filed two additional motions, titled "Defendant in Error
Petition to Unseal and Read all Grand Jury Information" (Doc.
374) and "Petition for Production of Specific Brady Materials" (Doc. 377).

In response to these motions the Government filed a "Consolidated Motion to
Dismiss and Response to Defendant's Motion for Disclosure of Grand Jury
Information and Production of Brady Material" (Doc. 385).

Defendant has filed "Defendant in Error's Response and Objections to the
Government's Consolidated Motion to Dismiss" along with an addendum thereto
(Docs. 388 & 392).

He then filed "Defendant in Error's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment along with
a similar "addendum" thereto (Docs. 389 & 391).

The Government filed a response to the motion to dismiss the indictment pursuant
to court order (Doc. 393). These matters are referred to the undersigned
magistrate judge for report and recommendation pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636 and
N.D. Fla. Loc. R. 72.2(B).

After a careful review of the record and the arguments presented, it is the
opinion of the undersigned that the Government's motion to dismiss Defendant's §
2255 motion should be granted, and Defendant's
motion to dismiss the indictment should be denied.

BACKGROUND

Defendant and his spouse were charged in a fifty-eight count indictment with tax
crimes, structuring crimes, and obstruction, all related to their ownership and
operation of a business in
Pensacola (Doc. 2).

Defendant was convicted as charged and sentenced to a term of 120 months
imprisonment (Docs. 81 & 154).

The Eleventh Circuit rejected Defendant's challenges to the
sufficiency of the indictment and the sufficiency of the evidence against him,
among other things, and affirmed his conviction and sentence (Docs. 318 & 385,
Ex. 1).

Defendant petitioned for a writ of certiorari, and the Supreme Court denied his
petition on November 2, 2009 (Doc. 333).

In March of 2010, Defendant filed five separate motions to dismiss pursuant to
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b) seeking dismissal with prejudice of his
criminal judgment (Docs. 334–338).

After response by the government (Doc. 341), the district court denied all five
of these motions (Docs. 342–346), as well as Defendant's motion for
reconsideration (Docs. 349 & 350) and two
additional motions to dismiss which were filed by Defendant in May and July of
2010 respectively (Docs. 351 & 352; 359 & 360).

As noted above, Defendant's initial § 2255 was filed on November 24, 2010, and
his amended motion was filed on December 9, 2010. Shortly thereafter he filed a
motion for release on bond in which he asserted that he should be released
because he was likely to prevail on the issues he raised in his § 2255 motion
(Doc. 368).

In response, the Government argued that Defendant was in fact not likely to
prevail because his motion appeared to be untimely (Doc. 371).

Defendant replied (Doc. 372), and the undersigned recommended that Defendant's
motion for release be denied, finding that Defendant was unlikely to prevail on
his § 2255 motion because it appeared to
be untimely (Doc. 373).

The district court adopted this recommendation over Defendant's objection (Docs.
379, 380, 383, & 384).

ANALYSIS

Title 28 U.S.C. § 2255(f) imposes a one-year time limitation on the filing of
motions under this section. The one-year period of time runs from the latest of:

(1) the date on which the judgment of conviction becomes final;

(2) the date on which the impediment to making a motion created by governmental
action in violation of the Constitution or laws of the United States is removed,
if the petitioner was prevented from making a motion by such governmental
action;

(3) the date on which the right asserted was initially recognized by the Supreme
Court, if that right has been newly recognized by the Supreme Court and made
retroactively applicable to cases on collateral review; or

(4) the date on which the facts supporting the claim or claims presented could
have been discovered through the exercise of due diligence. 28 U.S.C. § 2255.

The Eleventh Circuit affirmed Defendant's convictions on appeal on December 30,
2008, and the mandate issued on March 11, 2009. United States v. Hovind, 305
Fed. App'x 615 (11th Cir. 2008).

The Supreme Court's online docket reflects that on November 2, 2009, the Court
denied Defendant's petition for writ of certiorari and that on January 11, 2010,
the Court denied a petition for rehearing (Case No. 09-5043 at
http://www.supremecourt.gov, last visited April 12, 2011).

As previously noted, Defendant's initial § 2255 motion was signed and therefore
"filed" on November 24, 2010 (Doc. 361).

Based on the foregoing dates, Defendant's § 2255 motion was filed more than one
year after the Supreme Court denied the petition for writ of certiorari.
Defendant argues that he had until January of 2011, one year from the date that
his petition for rehearing was denied, to file his § 2255 motion.

His position, however, is legally mistaken.

In a case that could scarcely be more on point, the Eleventh Circuit held that a
defendant's conviction becomes final for purposes
of the AEDPA limitations period when the Supreme Court denies certiorari and
that the Court's subsequent refusal to reconsider its decision to deny a
petition for writ of certiorari has no bearing
on this determination.

Drury v. United States, 507 F.3d 1295, 1297 (11th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, ___
U.S. ____, 129 S. Ct. 159, 172 L. Ed. 2d 41 (2008); see also Jones v. United
States, 304 F.3d 1035, 1038 n.5 (11th Cir. 2002) (ruling that a judgment of
conviction becomes final within the meaning of § 2255(f) on the date on which
the Supreme Court denies certiorari); Clay v. United States, 437 U.S. 522, 123
S. Ct. 1072, 1079 (2003).

Therefore, based on the binding authority of Drury, Defendant's motion is
untimely, and the Government's motion to dismiss should be granted.

Defendant next claims that his motions for grand jury and Brady material are
timely filed under 28 U.S.C. § 1867.

This statute, which governs challenges to compliance with jury selection
procedures, provides in relevant part: in criminal cases, before the voir dire
examination begins, or within seven days after
the defendant discovered or could have discovered, by the exercise of due
diligence, the grounds therefore, whichever is earlier, the defendant may move
to dismiss the indictment or stay the proceedings against him on the ground of
substantial failure to comply with the provisions of this title in selecting the
grand or petit jury.
28 U.S.C. § 1867(a).

Defendant asserts that he brings this action within seven days after he
discovered the grounds for relief. He ignores the plain language of the statute
which he himself cites in his memorandum (see Doc. 388 at 2–3) providing that
the motion must be made by the earlier of either the beginning of voir dire or
the date the grounds for relief could have been discovered by the exercise of
due diligence. Clearly, to the extent he seeks to challenge compliance with
selection
procedures, his motions are untimely and due to be denied.

Defendant has also filed a motion to dismiss the indictment. He expressly states
that this motion should not be construed as part of his pending § 2255 motion
(Doc. 389 at 1), perhaps seeking to avoid a statute of limitations issue.
Regardless, in his motion to dismiss Defendant claims that the Government failed
to prove it had jurisdiction to charge and arrest him on federal charges.

Defendant's attempt to argue that his motion was timely under § 2255(f)(2) or
(4) is unpersuasive. Regardless of the nature of the Government's response to
Defendant's multiple Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) motions and how the district court
ruled on these motions, the Government is correct that Defendant raised many of
the same issues in those motions and in his § 2255, suggesting that Defendant's
claim of the existence of a government "impediment" to his timely filing his §
2255 motion is disingenuous. Additionally, Defendant's "sincere belief" that he
had until January of 2011 to file his motion (Doc. 388 at 5) does not operate to
extend the limitations period. See, e.g., Helton v. Secretary for Dept. of
Corrections, 259 F.3d 1310, 1313 (11th Cir. 2001) (mistake in calculating
one-year limitations period does not constitute "extraordinary circumstances"
warranting equitable tolling); Steed v. Head, 219 F.3d 1298 (11th Cir. 2000)
(same).

He maintains that federal prosecutors usurped state authority by arresting him
on "non-federal land" and bringing him against his will to the federal
courthouse and charging him with crimes over which
he claims that the state of Florida, not the federal government, has original
jurisdiction (Doc. 389 at 1–2). Defendant's claim, pared to its essence, that
the federal government can prosecute no crime that did not physically take place
on federally owned land, is patently frivolous.

Defendant also alleges that the indictment was deficient because it was procured
by fraud (Doc. 389 at 2, 4, 5). Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 12(b)(3)(B)
provides that a motion alleging a defect in the indictment ordinarily must be
made before trial, but that the court may hear a claim that the indictment fails
to invoke the court's jurisdiction or state an offense at any time while the
case is pending. Defendant's motion was not filed until February 26, 2011,
pursuant to the prison mailbox rule, and by this time his case was no longer
"pending" as required by Rule 12(b)(3)(B).

The Eleventh Circuit held, just two years ago, that a defendant's 12(b)(3)(B)
motion to dismiss the indictment filed after the issuance of the appellate
mandate, after the denial of petition for certiorari, and after a petition for
rehearing was untimely. United States v. Elso, 571 F.3d 1163 (11th Cir. 2009).

In fact, the Elso court identified the issuance of the appellate mandate as the
benchmark after which the case is no longer "pending." Id. at 1166.

In this case, the mandate issued on March 11, 2009, and thus, the court is
without authority to hear the motion to dismiss the
indictment, which motion was filed on February 26, 2011, and it must be denied.

In conclusion, after review of the record the undersigned recommends that the
district court decline Defendant's invitation to "tell the government to quit
whining about the time issue" and respond to the merits of his untimely motions
(see Doc. 388 at 7).

Time limitations are an integral part of ensuring the orderly functioning of the
judicial system, and Defendant's disagreement with
such deadlines, as applied to the facts of his case, does not entitle him to
circumvent them.

Each of his pending motions should be denied.

Based on the foregoing, it is respectfully RECOMMENDED:

1. That the Government's motion to dismiss (Doc. 385) be GRANTED;

2. That Defendant's Motion to Read all Grand Jury information (Doc. 374) be
DENIED;

3. That Defendant's Motion to Produce Brady Materials (Doc. 377) be DENIED.

4. That Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Indictment (Doc. 389) be DENIED.

At Pensacola, Florida, this 13th day of April 2011.
/s/ Elizabeth M. Timothy
ELIZABETH M. TIMOTHY

---------------------------
---------------------------