Kent Hovind on "structuring"!

[webhick]

Paths, I re-read this thread and I suggest you do the same. There is a disagreement among posters over the interpretation of the structuring law and many posters are being quite civil. Except you. You seem to have declared victory prematurely, bragged about it and are copping an attitude with anyone who disagrees with you.

As a laymen, I'm interested in seeing this civil debate progress because (as with a lot of the debates here) I'm learning new things - but I'm not interested in your attitude.

[Paths of the Sea]

Paths,

There is a disagreement among posters over the
interpretation of the structuring law and many
posters are being quite civil.

Except you.

You seem to have declared victory prematurely,
bragged about it and are copping an attitude with
anyone who disagrees with you.

As a laymen, I'm interested in seeing this civil
debate progress because (as with a lot of the debates
here) I'm learning new things - but I'm not interested
in your attitude.

I disagree, in part, with your analysis, but you are welcome to your opinions about such things.

While some posters may express some level of disagreement and obfuscate the simplicity inherent in the issue, there was no premature declaration of victory from me.

The law states that a singular transaction may be an instance of "structuring".

The regulations state that a singular transaction may be an instance of "structuring".

The judge in Hovind's case stated that a singular transaction may be an instance of "structuring".

The jury stated that a singular transaction, in Hovind's case, is an instance of "structuring" times 45.

The confusion some might exhibit regarding such things is not a result of any ambiguity.

I am not a lawyer, CPA or the son of a lawyer or CPA (i.e., maybe I am wrong).

I am interested in your attitude, and you are welcome to my assistance in this matter as to your learning. Maybe my attitude contributed to the effort you have made in learning about these important public issues; though you may not admit to it.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[webhick]

you are welcome to my assistance in this matter as to your learning. Maybe my attitude contributed to the effort you have made in learning about these important public issues; though you may not admit to it.

This is precisely what I'm talking about. You're not doing me any favors, so please stop acting like you are. Your attitude is a turn-off and at least one person PM'd me to say that they're going to stop responding to you because of it.

And you've got blinders on. No one has "won" this debate. Since at least two courts disagree on how to apply this law there is no way to "win" this until the court rules on it in Hovind's case and we find out which way they go.

I'm declaring this thread derailed and locking it down before it becomes a series of insults.

[wserra]

there is no way to "win" this until the court rules on it in Hovind's case and we find out which way they go.

I think this is the only time in the many years I've had mod privileges here that I've used them to post to a locked thread. I do not do so to continue the conversation; I was at least one of the folks who PM'd webhick that I was outta here. I do it because a number of people, as webhick above, have expressed interest in a fairly obscure point of law.

The Eleventh Circuit opinion in Hovind's direct appeal does not address the issue of multiplicity, in all likelihood because Hovind never raised it. Hovind has filed a number of collateral attacks on his conviction, all denied. He may have raised it in one of those. I don't plow through all his BS to attempt to locate the nugget because it likely doesn't matter. This is the type of issue that, if not raised on direct appeal, is surely waived.

The opinion does clarify the source of the funds the Hovinds were charged with structuring:

The Hovinds owned and operated Creation Science Evangelism Enterprises, which sold videos and literature, provided lecture services, and hosted live debates. Between 1999 and 2003, the Hovinds withdrew from AmSouth Bank over one and a half million dollars in increments less than $10,000 to avoid federal filing requirements.

In other words, no lump sums, just an aggregate of small deposits. This is surely the best case for each smurf constituting a crime.

Sorry, webhick.