Hovind & Barringer Stall the Tax Court A Little Longer!

[Paths of the Sea]

Bummer!

It looks like Kent Hovind is going to be able to continue to stall the U.S. Tax Court.

Since I advised Kent recently of his January 30, 2013 deadline, it seems he may have contacted his counsel of record and they have figured out a way to stall a little longer; the following docket entries having just now being posted:

Date: 02/04/2013
Action: MOTION by Jerold W. Barringer to withdraw as counsel.

Date: 02/13/2013
Action: ORDER time is extended to 3-6-13 file an objection,
notice of no objection or response to resp’s motion for entry
of decision.

Well, I guess if the Court wants to allow Hovind to play that game that’s the way it will play out.

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

TEXT OF ORDER:

UNITED STATES TAX COURT
WASHINGTON, DC 20217

Kent Hovind,
Petitioner,

v. Docket No. 4245-10.

COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE,
Respondent.

ORDER

For cause, it is ORDERED that the Clerk of the
Court shall attach a copy of respondent’s Motion
for Entry of Decision, filed December 26, 2012,
to the copy of this Order served on petitioner.

It is further ORDERED that the time within which
petitioner shall file an Objection, Notice of No
Objection, or other Response to respondent’s motion
for entry of decision is extended to March 6, 2013.

(Signed) Michael B. Thornton
Chief Judge

Dated: Washington, D.C.
February 13, 2013
SERVED

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

[notorial dissent]

I thought Barringer had been indefinitely suspended, did I miss something?

[LPC]

I thought Barringer had been indefinitely suspended, did I miss something?

He might have been suspended by the 7th Circuit at some point, but I don't know if the suspension has ended, and even if it hadn't, it would only apply to courts in the 7th Circuit and not the Tax Court.

There is a disciplinary proceeding against Barringer in his home state of Illinois that could be more serious, but it's still pending. You can see a copy of the complaint here.

[Prof]

I thought Barringer had been indefinitely suspended, did I miss something?

He might have been suspended by the 7th Circuit at some point, but I don't know if the suspension has ended, and even if it hadn't, it would only apply to courts in the 7th Circuit and not the Tax Court.

There is a disciplinary proceeding against Barringer in his home state of Illinois that could be more serious, but it's still pending. You can see a copy of the complaint here.

Without reviewing the rules, I think that suspension in one federal court results in suspension in other federal forums. ASAIK, this is certainly true in US District Court. Also, all of the pro hac admissions rules to which I have been subjected and all regular admission rules for US Distric Courts where I am admitted (7 or required disclosure of suspensions, and ordinarily, pro hac status or a new admission will not be granted to a suspended (anywhere) lawyer. I am a member of only two circuits, so I am unfamiliar with other Circuit admission rules.

As to District admission rules for new formal or pro hac admissions, ordinarily those rules would require disclosure of the Illinois state proceedings and would bar admission due to such proceedings unless reason was shown.

[notorial dissent]

So when did he acquire Barringer? I really did think I remembered him being bounced from Fed appearance until the suspension(indefinite) was lifted. I must have missed a chapter of two in this tear jerker. I don't think having Barringer helping would have been any help, particularly considering past results, but still. It certainly looks more like stall on the part of Dr D than anything else, as this train wreck only has one inevitable end, and it won't be pretty.

[Paths of the Sea]

So when did he acquire Barringer?

The Tax Court case was filed back in February 2010 and Barringer was there from the beginning.

Even earlier, Barringer was Jo Hovind's defense lawyer in the criminal case; while Alan Richey handled the defense for Kent.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[notorial dissent]

Either missed that altogether, or memory is slipping. Thx.

[Paths of the Sea]

Either missed that altogether, or memory is slipping.

Thx.

Maybe I should take the credit for giving Kent another chance to drag out the Tax Court proceedings.

Here's part of my recent exchange with Kent:

(1)

From: KENT E HOVIND (06452017)
To: Maury Enthusiast!
Date/Time: 1/26/2013 5:17:49 PM

(excerpts)

I know nothing of Jo's tax court decision nor did I
know I have a deadline to respond by Jan 30 to anything.

They have not notified me of any of this.

I've not heard from "tax court" in several years.

I think, in America, you get to face your accusers and
cannot be tried "in abstetia" or whatever the Latin
phrase is.

Can you send me a copy of the "Tax Court's latest
order" you reference please?

I will cc this to Paul Hansen the ministry trustee since
he handles the legal stuff.

Thanks!
Kent Hovind

(2)

From: KENT E HOVIND (06452017)
To: Maury Enthusiast!
Date/Time: 1/26/2013 11:11:36 PM

Subject: RE: U.S. Tax Court Issues

(excerpts)

Thanks.

I've not heard from them or Jerry Barringer
or been served anything in several years.

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

[Samphire]

I think, in America, you get to face your accusers and
cannot be tried "in abstetia" or whatever the Latin
phrase is.

Over here in the UK if you choose not to turn up to trial by absconding or misbehave at trial then you can certainly be tried "in abstentia". Neither circumstance applies in Kent's case.

But isn't Barringer the guy Kent forbade his family to speak to during one of his infamous prison phone calls? "Don't tell Barringer anything .... He is sticking his nose in where it doesn't belong. ..... Don't tell him nothing (sic)". With a client like Kent I'm surprised that Barringer is still on the scene over five years later.

I know nothing of Jo's tax court decision nor did I
know I have a deadline to respond by Jan 30 to anything.

I find that very difficult to believe. The family must be keeping Kent advised of Jo's case and, in his own case, there must be some party of record that the court responds to. Perhaps the court wrote to Kent with his name addressed in block capitals so he returned the envelope unopened.

[The Observer]

I think, in America, you get to face your accusers and
cannot be tried "in abstetia" or whatever the Latin
phrase is.

Well, if Ken is talking about Tax Court, there are no "accusers" there nor will he be "tried" there, absentia or not. Tax Court is based on the taxpayer initiating a civil suit. The government is the defendant. It is not a criminal trial.

[Dezcad]

I know nothing of Jo's tax court decision nor did I
know I have a deadline to respond by Jan 30 to anything.

They have not notified me of any of this.

I've not heard from "tax court" in several years.

I think, in America, you get to face your accusers and
cannot be tried "in abstetia" or whatever the Latin
phrase is.

Here's the correct Latin for Kent - 'supprime tuum stultiloquium!'.

[Ceteris Paribus]

I think, in America, you get to face your accusers and
cannot be tried "in abstetia" or whatever the Latin
phrase is.

I have edited Kentard for clarity:

"I think, in America, you get to faze your accusers and cannot be tried in absinthe or whatever the Liquor law is."

[Famspear]

I think, in America, you get to face your accusers and
cannot be tried "in abstetia" or whatever the Latin
phrase is.

Well, if Ken is talking about Tax Court, there are no "accusers" there nor will he be "tried" there, absentia or not. Tax Court is based on the taxpayer initiating a civil suit. The government is the defendant. It is not a criminal trial.

From time to time I have noticed that tax protester-tax denier-Wackadoosters do tend to think of the whole "federal income tax" process as some sort of "punishment" process.

I seem to recall that some " 'Doosters" have actually asserted that just being forced by law to fill out the income amounts on a federal income tax return amounts to compelling the 'Dooster to incriminate himself -- essentially, that forcing the 'Dooster to admit that he has a tax liability is forcing him to submit himself to a "punishment" akin to a criminal penalty.

Now, yes, in some very broad, colloquial sense, my having to pay taxes can be thought of as "punishing" to my bank account balance, but that's hardly a rational basis for treating the payment of those taxes (and the duty to fill out the tax return) as being somehow morally or legally equivalent to punishment for criminal conduct.

The mistake that Hovind made -- of thinking of a U.S. Tax Court proceeding as being a proceeding where he is being "accused" of something (rather than as a place for him to be afforded the opportunity to contest, before an impartial judge, the validity of a tax amount without first having to pay that amount) -- is symptomatic. It's as though he thinking, "The IRS is ACCUSING me of owing more tax" -- as though merely owing additional tax is itself (in his mind) somehow a "crime".

[Paths of the Sea]

Kent Hovind addresses a plan to get him out of prison sooner rather than later:

http://www.facebook.com/2peter3

From: Kent Hovind
To: Michael Power
Date: Wednesday, February 20, 2013

(excerpts)

To get out I need:

1. ...

2.

Pressure on congress to pass HR 62-that puts
me home today.

3. ...

4.

Raise support for the legal defense - Paul
Hansen at 2peter3.com is trustee.

5. ...

~Kent Hovind

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

[Famspear]

To get out I need:

1. ...

2.

Pressure on congress to pass HR 62-that puts me home today.


....

In the new Congress, there is a House Bill 62, H.R. 62, introduced by Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas:

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.

This Act may be cited as the `Federal Prison Bureau Nonviolent Offender Relief Act of 2013'.

SEC. 2. EARLY RELEASE FOR CERTAIN NONVIOLENT OFFENDERS.

(a) In General- Section 3624 of title 18, United States Code, is amended--

(1) in subsection (a), by inserting `at the early release date provided in subsection (g), if applicable, or otherwise' after `A prisoner shall be released by the Bureau of Prisons'; and

(2) by adding at the end the following:

`(g) Early Release for Certain Nonviolent Offenders- Notwithstanding any other provision of law, the Bureau of Prisons, pursuant to a good time policy, shall release from confinement a prisoner who has served one half or more of his term of imprisonment (including any consecutive term or terms of imprisonment) if that prisoner--
`(1) has attained the age of 45 years;

`(2) has never been convicted of a crime of violence; and

`(3) has not engaged in any violation, involving violent conduct, of institutional disciplinary regulations.'.

This proposal has been referred to the House Judiciary Committee.

[Paths of the Sea]

In the new Congress, there is a House Bill 62, H.R. 62,
introduced by Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas:

This proposal has been referred to the House Judiciary
Committee.

I think it is one of those measures that gets introduced quite regularly and never gets very far.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Famspear]

In the new Congress, there is a House Bill 62, H.R. 62,
introduced by Ms. Sheila Jackson Lee of Texas:

This proposal has been referred to the House Judiciary
Committee.

I think it is one of those measures that gets introduced quite regularly and never gets very far.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

Apparently so. Similar proposals have been introduced, including:

>>H.R. 256 in 2005
>>H.R. 261 in 2007
>>H.R. 61 in 2009
>>H.R. 223 in 2011

EDIT: And H.R. 3575 in 2003.

[notorial dissent]

I don't know if I missed it, or just wasn't paying attention, but what was Dr D's and Barringer's excuse for the delay this time? I would have thought by this time they should have been as ready to go as they are likely to ever get.

[Paths of the Sea]

(W)hat was Dr D's and Barringer's excuse for
the delay this time?

I would have thought by this time they should
have been as ready to go as they are likely to
ever get.

They had over a year to file a joint status report by 12/31/2012. The Government filed a report, but nothing from Hovind or Barringer. Hovind claims he hadn't heard from Barringer in "years" and that he was not keeping up with anything going on with the Tax Court.

It's not clear what Kent might have known about his Tax Court case. Earlier, through Barringer, Kent had tried to withdraw his petition and revoke the Court's jurisdiction; didn't work.

Recently, Paul Hansen wrote, on this issue:

> From: Paul Hansen
> To: Lora Seybert
> cc: Maury Enthusiast
> Date: Friday, February 1, 2013
>
> Lora,
>
>> 1.
>>
>> What does Kent Hovind plan to do, if
>> anything, about the January 30, 2013
>> deadline set by the U.S. Tax Court in
>> his pending U.S. Tax Court case?
>
> He never enjoined the case, TAX COURT is only by
> consent, no one is summonsed to this administrative
> court, such are only for taxpayers per case /
> congressional law.
>
> Paul Hansen,
> CEO/Manager of CSE

I guess we'll just have to wait and see if Kent files anything with the Tax Court now that Barringer has backed out and Kent has been given until March 6 to make a response.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

I also note that Barringer made the following statement in his earlier, failed attempt to get Kent's case withdrawn:

> "(Kent Hovind) has no intention of proceeding
> in tax court [sic] at any point in the future".

That was back in 2011 and the Tax Court still allowed more than a year for that joint status report.

Barringer's statement above was referenced in the Court's recent Order that the Government file its "motion for entry of decision".

So, I am thinking that the latest deadline might come and go without any response from Kent.

Then, I would hope, the Court would move quickly to enter its decision.

Even with a response from Hovind, I would hope the Court would enter its decision because any response is not likely to be made in good faith and in recognition of the Court's authority/jurisdiction. However, Kent might yet file something that manages a further delay.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!