Dr. Dino Thread

[Paths of the Sea]

I think that is the case.

That, I think, also explains why Dr. Dino hasn't really been providing legal updates on the various legal updates website that really provide legal updates. His criminal case is going nowhere despite having filed about 100 motions.

I don't think he's even publicly admitted he and his wife have pending Tax Court cases involving millions in liabilities; much less attempt to explain the details of the issues in those cases.

It may be that, if Jo's lawyer though the trial was going to be lasting longer than a day because he had a lot of fluff to try and get in, that the Court would no entertain the fluff and so short circuited his presentations and the trial was quickly brought to an end with the Government clearly in the advantageous position.

Maybe if Jo got a message from the trial, she and her lawyer will be now more seriously seeking a settlement before the Court brings down the hammer.

I would also be interested in knowing if the Court tied its issuance of a decision to the trial results in the related case of Dr. Dino. So, despite not being consolidated for trial, the decisions will be coordinated in order to insure consistency as to results.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

Dr. Dino - The Movie (I wonder if the promoters know about the Tax Court issues!)
----------------------------------------------
http://resurrectionpictures.org/projects/creation/

Dr. Dino
"Where Creation and Evolution Collide"

(excerpts)

"Dr. Dino", Resurrection Pictures' original film project,
is a biopic that dramatizes the life of Kent "Dr. Dino"
Hovind, tracing his rise to prominence as one of
America's best known creation evangelists.

The film is written by Kevin Miller, the writer of
"EXPELLED: No Intelligence Allowed."

It is scheduled for production in 2011.

Disturbed by the devastating effect Darwin's theory
of evolution was having on morality, religion and
human worth, in 1989 Dr. Hovind founded Creation
Science Evangelism to help expose the lies of evolution
and introduce people to evidence for young earth
Creationism.

His ministry eventually took him across the country and
around the globe, where he gave thousands of lectures,
and conducted debates with hundreds of leading
evolutionists.

In 2006, Dr. Hovind's travels came to an abrupt end
when he was arrested and sentenced to prison due
to a conflict with the IRS.

But his ministry lives on through his teaching videos and
his son Eric, who is taking Dr. Hovind's message to a
whole new generation.

With "Dr. Dino," Resurrection Pictures plans to take Dr.
Hovind's message to a new audience as well.

Movies influence culture, trends, fashion, language and
even religious beliefs like never before.

By packaging Dr. Hovind's teachings within a dramatic
feature film, we will be creating an edifying entertainment
experience that allows viewers to see beyond the deception
of evolution.

Here is an excerpt from the final script of Dr. Dino.

Check it out!!

http://resurrectionpictures.org/wp-cont ... -for-Websi\
te-1.pdf

We need your donations to produce this project.

Please consider donating to this important project.

If you are interested in becoming an investor,
please contact us for more information.

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

[Paths of the Sea]

From Jo Hovind's U.S. Tax Court docket history:

From the U.S. Tax Court docket history:

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

04/27/2011

TRIAL before Judge Marvel at Mobile, AL

OPENING BRIEFS DUE 7/26/11.
ANSWERING BRIEFS DUE 9/26/11.
NO OTHER BRIEFS DUE.

SUBMITTED TO JUDGE MARVEL

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

[ASITStands]

From Jo Hovind's U.S. Tax Court docket history:

From the U.S. Tax Court docket history:

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

04/27/2011

TRIAL before Judge Marvel at Mobile, AL

OPENING BRIEFS DUE 7/26/11.
ANSWERING BRIEFS DUE 9/26/11.
NO OTHER BRIEFS DUE.

SUBMITTED TO JUDGE MARVEL

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

Actually, that's a good sign the Petitioner raised valid arguments.

Not every Tax Court trial ends in a briefing schedule. Most cases that include frivolous issues will not require briefs, and judges seldom allow known frivolous issues to be briefed.

As for a press release, other than the perceptions of observers, there wouldn't be.

When a Petitioner has a valid issue for Tax Court, trial is preceded by motions, a pretrial memorandum and stipulations, and a briefing schedule is filed AFTER the trial is held.

After briefing, the judge takes the case into consideration, and a decision is filed.

Some cases receive only a decision while others receive a memorandum with a decision based on it, and so, no press release is warranted until an actual decision is made.

[Paths of the Sea]

Personally, I think someone should have been there and reported on the trial. I, for one, would have like to have heard how it went.

It was already announced that Jo was intending to present legitimate defenses against the Government's notice of deficiency. I figure if she proceeded legitimately she should be able to rebut all or most of the liabilities as to her. Of course, in that process she might have to, in effect, testify against her husband.

Her testimony, if she gave any, would have been most interesting to know about; especially as it relates to putting the burden on her husband whose trial has yet to be scheduled.

Did she even testify?

I don't know.

Guess I'll just have to wait; ultimately for the Court's opinion in the case.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[ASITStands]

Personally, I think someone should have been there and reported on the trial. I, for one, would have like to have heard how it went.

It was already announced that Jo was intending to present legitimate defenses against the Government's notice of deficiency. I figure if she proceeded legitimately she should be able to rebut all or most of the liabilities as to her. Of course, in that process she might have to, in effect, testify against her husband.

Her testimony, if she gave any, would have been most interesting to know about; especially as it relates to putting the burden on her husband whose trial has yet to be scheduled.

Did she even testify?

I don't know.

Guess I'll just have to wait; ultimately for the Court's opinion in the case.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

She may not have testified, but she did present her case.

The reason I responded before was to let you know that the order of things in Tax Court is somewhat backward from the usual thinking, in that, the briefs come AFTER trial.

Before trial, both sides agree on a joint stipulation of facts and pretrial memorandum.

The stipulation of facts is a starting point, and the memorandum lays out the facts, arguments and legal authorities each side relies upon. It's sort of a primer for trial.

If Jo Hovind had facts and/or arguments that supported her view that the notices did not apply to her (i.e., the income was not hers), she laid those out in the memorandum.

Once she got to trial, the judge made sure the stipulation and memoranda were filed and asked if there were any "other" exhibits or motions either side wanted admitted.

Much of the early time in trial was likely taken up with one side admitting exhibits and the other challenging, or allowing, as they saw fit. Most unrepresented taxpayers have little understanding how an exhibit is admitted, and it's different in Tax Court than District Court.

In District Court an exhibit is entered into evidence through a witness. In Tax Court it's merely presented with the request to admit it, and the other side is allowed to rebut.

If either side submitted a motion, time was given to the other side to rebut. Arguments were taken by the judge on both sides, and the motion was either admitted or denied.

After this preliminary, both sides were allowed to call witnesses. Witnesses must be identified before trial in the memorandum, so it's unknown whether either side called one.

In some cases, the government has a witness they call to prove income was received, and in other cases, the government may only have a rebuttal witness if the Petitioner testifies.

It's entirely possible Jo Hovind called no witnesses and did not testify herself. However, she might have had a character witness, or someone who worked closely with her, but still did not testify herself. There's all sorts of possibilities, but usually, it's not complicated.

Typical trials last one or one and a half hours after which the judge sets briefing.

Yes. It would have been interesting but perhaps not as interesting as you suppose. If you have never attended Calendar Call or a Tax Court Trial, you should set aside a day and do so.

In this case, unless Jo Hovind talks, we'll not know until the decision is made.

[Paths of the Sea]

I have attended a lot of calendar calls and participated in a lot pre-trial settlements. I've also testified at a couple of Tax Court trials.

Having a special interest in things Hovind, I would have found the trial of particular interest, despite the typical ho-hum proceedings in a Tax Court trial.

Jo had filed a notice that she had witnesses who would try to testify that she had nothing to do with the operations of the "ministry". Considering her criminal conviction relating to her involvement in the "ministry", I figure that aspect, if no other, would have been quite interesting if it were part of the trial presentation.

Alas, I guess I'll have to wait unless there were to be someone there who starts talkin'!

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[wserra]

Considering her criminal conviction relating to her involvement in the "ministry", I figure that aspect, if no other, would have been quite interesting if it were part of the trial presentation.

She was only convicted of structuring, not tax crimes. In fact - I just checked - she was only indicted for structuring. Her conviction does not preclude her from litigating her involvement in the operation of the sc__ - er, "ministry".

The govt's summary of her relevant conduct (from its sentencing memo):

in order to meet the payroll obligations of CSE, the defendant withdrew slightly under $10,000 cash from her account in irregular intervals and several times per month, on occasion several times per week. (Id.). At the time of each individual withdrawal, the defendant had financial need greater than the amount withdrawn, and had more money available than the amount withdrawn, but chose to withdraw under $10,000 on every occasion.

She has the burden of proof in TC (right, TC mavens?), and may have a hard time proving that she wasn't structuring to further the unlawful aims of the "ministry", but she's not foreclosed from trying.

[.]

I have no idea what the fixation is due to, but she, like he, is dead meat.

The properties will likely never be recovered, they don't have and likely can't raise the necessary sums. "Dr. Dino" together with all associated and ancillary exercises in frivolity in whatever court is, for all intents and purposes, extinct.

Evolution happens. Even in the world of tax cheats. Whether they like it or not.

[ASITStands]

The govt's summary of her relevant conduct (from its sentencing memo):

in order to meet the payroll obligations of CSE, the defendant withdrew slightly under $10,000 cash from her account in irregular intervals and several times per month, on occasion several times per week. (Id.). At the time of each individual withdrawal, the defendant had financial need greater than the amount withdrawn, and had more money available than the amount withdrawn, but chose to withdraw under $10,000 on every occasion.

She has the burden of proof in TC (right, TC mavens?), and may have a hard time proving that she wasn't structuring to further the unlawful aims of the "ministry", but she's not foreclosed from trying.

Yes. She has the burden of proof.

I'd suspect she'd take the route of the "obedient wife" and then try to show that she had misgivings because of conversations she had with other employees, etc. Innocent Spouse

Actually, I've "seen" that somewhere. I wonder if it was presented in the criminal trial.

[Paths of the Sea]

[quote="wserra"]

She was only convicted of structuring, not tax crimes.

In fact - I just checked - she was only indicted for
structuring. Her conviction does not preclude her
from litigating her involvement in the operation
of the sc__ - er, "ministry".

[/quote]

Seems to me her conviction on the structuring charges would prevent her from arguing she had no invovlement in the "management, operation, or control of Christian Science Evangelism (CSE) or DinosaurAdventure Land (DAL) activities".

She could, however, argue the extent of such involvement and how it might relate to a determination of her income.

Alas, with no coverage of the trial, we must wait for details.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

[quote="ASITStands"]

Yes. She has the burden of proof.

I'd suspect she'd take the route of the "obedient wife" and then try to show that she had misgivings because of conversations she had with other employees, etc. Innocent Spouse

Actually, I've "seen" that somewhere.

I wonder if it was presented in the criminal trial.

[/quote]

Since the civil fraud penalty appears to be involved, the Government would appear to have its share of the burden of proof.

As to "innocent spouse", I don't think that works at all where there is no joint return filed.

Sincerely,
Maury enthusiast!

[notorial dissent]

Well, she could always go for the tried and true "too stupid to walk and chew gum" defense, I think having married Dr D should count as prima facie proof of that.

[Famspear]

Well, she could always go for the tried and true "too stupid to walk and chew gum" defense, I think having married Dr D should count as prima facie proof of that.

Whoah! Good point!

[darling]

Personally, I think someone should have been there and reported on the trial. I, for one, would have like to have heard how it went.

Then you should have gone

Seriously, I'm as fascinated with the Hovinds' interesting take on reality as the next person, but I expect most people here have better things to do with their time - even if travel wasn't an issue.

[Judge Roy Bean]

Well, she could always go for the tried and true "too stupid to walk and chew gum" defense, I think having married Dr D should count as prima facie proof of that.

Whoah! Good point!

She could try the "Pure Heart-Empty Head" defense that worked for a foreclosure mill there in Florida.

[Paths of the Sea]

Dr. Dino, in his criminal trial, has now been appealing to John Paul Hansen for help. In a recent response to a report and recommendation, Dr. Dino argued Hansen's position regarding territorial jurisdiction. The Court disregarded the nonsense and issued an Order denying his motion to dismiss.

Hansen tried to file an amicus action in Dr. Dino's criminal case as well. The Court would not even file it but did take note of the effort and denied it because Hansen is not a party to the action.

In related action, the 11th Circuit recently denied Dr. Dino's most recent appeal of the Order denying his mandamus request.

Here's the link and latest effort from Hansen's blog in defense of Dr. Dino (there's earlier postings in defense of Dr. Dino as well):

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

http://www.pauljjhansen.com/?p=352

← Criminal Prosicutor, “ON wrong Land”.

Hovind, Kent – Attorney General Notice

Posted on June 11, 2011 by Paul John: Hansen

NOTICE

TO: Robert Stinson, USA Attorney, Tallahassee, Suite 400, 111 N Adams St., Florida, 32301

CC TO: Attorney General, Pam Bondi, State of Florida, The Capitol PL-01, Tallahassee, FL 32399-1050

FROM: Paul John Hansen, Trustee, Counsel for Kent Hovind, 1548 N 19, Omaha, Nebraska, without the United States. 402-957-2853

RE: Notice of Violation of Written Law

The United States of America has claimed that Kent Hovind violated various US Codes, to which he received a ten+ year sentence by THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA PENSACOLA DIVISION, Case No.: 3:06cr83/MCR

This is a Notice of the violation of the acting Attorney(s) as to practicing law outside of their licensed jurisdiction, for a licensed attorney only has permission to practice law within the United States.

As there is no evidence, that the acts that Kent Hovind was accused of doing, occurred on land that was owned by the United States of America at the time of the alleged crime. Or the subject land as addressed hereafter is in the same said jurisdiction of the US court, USC.

All US written law have force derived from permission, as associated with proprietary right. All US written law is exclusively legislated for specific land, that being land owned by the United States of America and lacks such written permission to be enforced on land not owned by the United States of America. Said fact can not be altered or affected by any court, plaintiff, or defendant.

No sustainable evidence exist that supports that Kent Hovind is a type subject to any US written law when occupying land not owned by the United States of America.

All written laws have territorial limitations and the United States is no different from any other government in that respects (a jurisdictional component). You, as a/the USA Attorney MUST understand that statement because not only is this your job, you have taken an oath to uphold the written laws of the United States at all times. Your profession requires that you obey the written laws AND its limitations regardless of the implications that the truth may have on you.

You are licensed to practice law ONLY in the United States and this is something that you may have overlooked in the past, but you can no longer ignore because I am bringing it to your attention right here and right now.

What is relevant remains the fact that you are now informed that you are, have been, practicing law outside of the territorial jurisdiction of the United States and as such have been providing legal advice to your client / employer, to act outside of the United Sates, is a clear violation of the standards contained in the Rules of Professional Conduct of the Association from whom you derive your license to practice law.

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

[notorial dissent]

OK, I’ll bite, Paul John Hansen, doesn’t ring any bells that I can think of, other than being from planet way out there?????

Aside from pretending to be a lawyer, “Counsel for Kent Hovind” and one of the only US territory pretenders, don’t see much to recommend him for amusement value.

[Paths of the Sea]

He seems to have a history and is at least a local character of sorts in Nebraska; or so it seems. Maybe he just hasn't hit the big time yet.

From his website:

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

ABOUT ME, contact
Paul John Hansen

Foremost I love the Lord, His written Word, and the Family of God. My income is primarily derived from rental properties; I am a serious student of common-law, and constitutional limitations of the US Government. I have been in court over 200 times. I have received numerous death threats that appear to come from NEBRASKA STATE agents and officers. I have been arrested an estimated 6 times. Always bogus misdemeanor charges. (Mostly Municipal Housing Codes, or related acts.) I file no Federal Income Taxes (1040 Form) since the year 2000. (No filings in any form.) I do not pay STATE sales tax on major purchases. I pay no COUNTY property taxes with out a judicial challenge. ( I believe I have discovered a “filing for record” process that takes my Land off the tax roles. ) I do not vote for UNITED STATE, or NEBRASKA STATE, County, or City governing officers. I am a free inhabitant pursuant to Article IV of the AOC. (Not a US citizen.) I believe in full support of the “perpetual Union” as found in the Articles of Confederation. I have discovered that a “free inhabitant” has the lawful standing to choose to live independent of the corporate US governments, and its statutory courts in the vast majority of his daily life, and to be forced to do otherwise is slavery.

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

[Paths of the Sea]

Paul John Hansen has also been mentioned here before by others. The search feature turns up some references.