Kent Hovind's Appeal of Tax Court Decision!

[Paths of the Sea]

Case: 13-12520 Date Filed: 07/29/2013

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING
56 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

John Ley
Clerk of Court

July 29, 2013

Kent E. Hovind
FCI Berlin-Inmate Legal Mail
PO BOX 9000
BERLIN, NH 03570

Appeal Number: 13-12520-F
Case Style: Kent Hovind v. Commissioner of IRS
Agency Docket Number: 4245-10

The enclosed order has been ENTERED.

Pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 42-1(b) you are hereby notified
that upon expiration of fourteen (14) days from this date, this appeal will be
dismissed by the clerk without further notice unless you pay to the Clerk of the
U.S. Tax Court a total fee of $450, with notice to this office.

Sincerely,
JOHN LEY
Clerk of Court

Enclosure:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-12520-F

KENT E. HOVIND
Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF IRS,
Respondent-Appellee.

Petition for Review of a Decision of the
United States Tax Court

ORDER:

Kent E. Hovind's motion for leave to proceed on appeal in forma pauperis is DENIED because the appeal is frivolous.

See Pace v. Evans, 709 Fed. 2nd 1428, 1429 (11th Cir. 1983).

(signed) William H. Pryor, Jr.
UNITED STATES CIRCUIT JUDGE

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

The Pace v. Evans case referenced above can be found at:

https://bulk.resource.org/courts.gov/c/ ... -8150.html

Anyone here able to pull up Kent's motion for pauper status to see what he claimed in convincing the Court his appeal was frivolous?

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast

[fortinbras]

Isn't it a bit odd that this guy's scheme for not paying taxes made him so prosperous that he had to apply for forma pauperis!

[Paths of the Sea]

Isn't it a bit odd that this guy's scheme for not paying taxes made him so prosperous that he had to apply for forma pauperis!

It is also noteworthy, in my opinion, that Kent boasts of having a legal team headed up Paul Hansen, and is not neglectful in mentioning how folks can fund his legal efforts by sending Hansen money:

http://www.pauljjhansen.com/

Kent has also been seen boasting of his extensive email/mail activity that costs him $300 or so a month.

Kent's son, Eric, who operates under the guise of the family business which now enjoys tax-exempt status, has mentioned that one of the things the business does is "prison ministry"; making me wonder if that accounts for much of Kent's funding.

Come to think of it, Eric is promoting today's world premier of a new movie featuring him and his personal testimony; DVD available for a fee! I am not sure if the premier on YouTube today is going to be the full movie for free or just a trailer with the option to buy the full-length feature.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

Kent had a document filed with the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals last week that purports to be an "appeal" of his recent Tax Court decision.

While there is much that may be discussed regarding the "appeal", one point I have proposed is that it, in part, constitutes a perjury.

Consider the following from the document:

- UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
- FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
-
- Case #13-12520-F
-
- Kent E. Hovind (pro se)
- Appellee
-
- v.
-
- Commissioner of Internal Revenue
- Appellant
-
- APPEAL
-
- (excerpts)
-
- Comes now Kent E. Hovind, appealing a Final Order
- from the United States Tax Court dated May 15th,
- 2013, for the following grounds:
-
- 1.
-
- Kent E. Hovind, appellee, hereby swears under
- penalty of perjury to his statements herein,
- pursuant to 28 USC 1746.
-
- 4.
-
- Due to being frequently transferred, the appellee
- has not received notice of many of the relevant
- motions, orders and requirements, and due to his
- incarcerated status had no means to attend the
- trial or its hearings, all of which is a clear violation
- of the appellee's constitutional due process,
- rendering the final order filed against him
- unconstitutional.
-
- Very respectfully,
- s/ Kent E. Hovind
- Dated 07/30/2013

I propose that #4 is false and Kent knows it is false.

That is, in part, because Kent had counsel up until the final days before the Tax Court decision, even now claims to have and to have had a "legal team" working on his behalf, and as a consequence of my personal correspondence with Kent regarding his and his wife's Tax Court proceedings before the decision was rendered by the Tax Court.

The Government has already filed it's response to the above suggesting that no response is necessary at this time unless the Court explicitly requested such from the Government since the attempt to appeal was earlier DENIED as frivolous.

(I suppose one could interpret Hovind's complaints to be an indictment of his counsel Jerold W. Barringer as if Barringer never said a word to Kent about what was going on in his case. It would not be the first time Kent got the counsel he wanted and then complained about the representation he got. Didn't work for him in his criminal case; quite unlikely to work in this case.)

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[notorial dissent]

Kent has, as I recall, claimed off and on about not getting various documents, usually when it was convenient to him, and don't I remember that he actually refused to received some documents at one point?

I do think you are right, Kent is lying, and knows he is lying, but has run out of anything else at this point.

As you say, I can't imagine this will go any better than his previous appeals.

[Paths of the Sea]

The feds reply:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-12520-F

KENT E. HOVIND,
Petitioner-Appellant,

v.

COMMISSIONER OF IRS
Respondent-Appellee

APPELLEE'S RESPONSE TO APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER

Kent E. Hovind, appellant herein, has submitted a document that has
been entered on the docket of this appeal as a motion for
reconsideration of the Court's July 29, 2013 order denying his motion to proceed
in forma pauperis.

The Commissioner of Internal Revenue, appellee herein, hereby responds to this
motion.

On February 18, 2010, Hovind filed a petition in the United States Tax
Court seeking redetermination of tax deficiencies determined by the
Commissioner for Hovind's 1998 through 2006 tax years. (Doc. 1.)

On May 15, 2013, the Tax Court entered its order and 1 decision,
determining deficiencies, penalties, and additions to the tax "Doc.
references are to the documents contained in the record on 1 appeal,
as numbered by the clerk of the Tax Court. - against Hovind for all
years at issue. (Doc. 38.)

On May 30, 2013, within 90 days after entry of the decision, Hovind
timely appealed. (Doc. 39.) See 26 U.S.C. § 7483; Fed. R. App. P. 1
3(a).

On June 17, 2013, Hovind moved in this Court to proceed in forma pa
uperis.

On July 29, 2013, the Court issued an order denying the motion "be
cause the appeal is frivolous. See Pace v. Evans, 709 F.2d 1428,
1429 (11th Cir. 1983)."

On August 5, 2013, the record on appeal was returned to the Tax Court.

On August 5, 2013, Hovind filed a document captioned "Appeal" that
the Court has placed on the docket of this case as "Motion for
reconsideration of single judge's order entered on 07/29/2013."

In this document, Hovind does not address the order denying his motion to
proceed in forma pauperis.

Rather, he argues that the Tax Court's decision was incorrect.

The document captioned "Appeal" appears on its face to be frivolous.

Hovind has not yet paid the docketing fee, however, and the Court is not
treating the document he has filed as a brief.

Given the procedural posture of the case, the Commissioner does not
believe it is appropriate for him to address Hovind's arguments against the Tax
Court's decision on appeal unless directed to do so
by the Court.

Respectfully submitted,
KATHRYN KENEALLY
Assistant Attorney General

/s/ Carol Barthel
JOAN I. OPPENEHIMER
Attorneys
Tax Division
Department of Justice

AUGUST 9, 2013

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

[Paths of the Sea]

Kent Hovind Action - Appeal of Tax Court Decision

Cover Letter (excerpts)

United States Court of Appeals
For the Eleventh Circuit

John Ley
Clerk of Court

September 5, 2013

Kent E. Hovind
Appeal Number: 13-12520-F
Case Style: Kent Hovind v. Commissioner of IRS

The enclosed order has been ENTERED.

Pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 42-1(b) you are hereby notified that upon
expiration of fourteen (14) days from this date, this petition will be dismissed
by the clerk without further notice unless you pay the clerk of this court a
total fee of $450. See I.O.P. 1, Payment of Fees, following FRAP 15.

Sincerely,
John Ley,
Clerk of the Court

Enclosed Order:

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

No. 13-12520-F

KENT E. HOVIND,
Petitioner-Appellant,

versus

COMMISSIONER OF IRS,
Respondent-Appellee.

Petition for Reveiew of a Decision of the U.S. Tax Court

Before: BARKETT, MARCUS, and WILSON, Circuit Judges.

BY THE COURT:

Kent Hovind has filed a motion for reconsideration, pursuant to 11th Cir. R.
22-1(c) and 27-2, of this Court's order, dated July 29, 2013, denying his motion
for leave to proceed in forma pauperis ("IFP").

Hovind has moved for IFP status to apeal the order of the U.S. Tax Court,
granting the government's "Motion for Entry of Decision."

Upon review, Hovind's motion for reconsideration is DENIED, as he has offered no new evidence or arguments of merit to warrant relief.

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

[Paths of the Sea]

Kent Hovind is now claiming he has paid his fee in order to appeal his recent U.S. Tax Court Decision and that he has submitted his appeal.

In his typical cryptic fashion, Kent has suggested there is something amiss with the U.S. Tax Court since he appears to have trouble finding it in Section III of the Constitution.

Is anyone here familiar with that line of argument and response as to the constitutionality of the U.S. Tax Court?

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Pottapaug1938]

Kent Hovind is now claiming he has paid his fee in order to appeal his recent U.S. Tax Court Decision and that he has submitted his appeal.

In his typical cryptic fashion, Kent has suggested there is something amiss with the U.S. Tax Court since he appears to have trouble finding it in Section III of the Constitution.

Is anyone here familiar with that line of argument and response as to the constitutionality of the U.S. Tax Court?

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

Well, I'd say that this excerpt from Article III Section 1 should do it:

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

[Paths of the Sea]

I'd say that this excerpt from Article III Section 1 should do it:

"The judicial power of the United States, shall be vested in one Supreme Court, and in such inferior courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish."

You would think so, but games they do play.

The Tax Court states on its website that it is an Article I constituted tribunal, and so Kent tries to make something out of that. Article I is not Article III, and Kent can't, apparently, see the Tax Court in Article III.

Maybe its some kind of new gimmick he's trying out. I am not familiar with what he may be getting at...so I'm just asking.

More specifically, here's how Kent is trying to play it out:

- My question was where is the tax court
- found under article III (THREE).
-
- Does his answer about it being under
- article I (ONE) create some limits on its
- jurisdiction?
-
- Is it just for elected officials?
-
- How does it get authority over those who
- are not elected.
-
- Just asking.
-
-- Kent Hovind

Anyone familiar with that line of argument, speculation??

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Pottapaug1938]

Okay, then. Let's try this clause from Article I, Section 8:

"To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;"

On top of that, the "necessary and proper clause" from Section 10 should tie up any loose ends.

[Paths of the Sea]

Okay, then. Let's try this clause from Article I, Section 8:

"To constitute tribunals inferior to the Supreme Court;"

On top of that, the "necessary and proper clause" from Section 10 should tie up any loose ends.

Works for me.

I'm trying to figure out where Kent might be trying to go with his game-playing.

Maybe it's a new frivolous idea he and his people have come up with, but I wouldn't want to give them that much credit.

Kent seems to want to try and distinguish how Article I and Article III might relate to the legitimacy of the Tax Court and who might come under its jurisdiction.

Rather than try to guess what he might be getting at, I have asked Kent to state his affirmative complaint, if he has one, for further consideration.

That discussion is playing out primarily on Kent's website where he allows "debate" with him:

http://www.2peter3.com/Debate.html (under "General Discussion")

It's also be chronicled elsewhere.

Is it something new?
Anybody familiar with Kent's apparent effort to deny the Tax Court has jurisdiction in his case?

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Dr. Caligari]

The distinction between the Tax Court, as an an Article I court, and other federal courts being Article III courts, is that Tax Court judges do not serve for life, but rather have only 15-year terms. This has been held constitutional because no one is forced to litigate in Tax Court; it's a choice available to taxpayers, who can instead choose to pay the tax and sue for a refund in an Article III court.

[Paths of the Sea]

The distinction between the Tax Court, as an an Article I court, and other federal courts being Article III courts....

I'm just a tyro, but I don't see the distinction that you and Kent seem to be trying to make between Article I and Article III.

Article I
Section 8

The Congress shall have power to...
constitute tribunals inferior to the
Supreme Court.

Article III
Section 1

The judicial power of the United States,
shall be vested in one Supreme Court,
and in such inferior courts as the
Congress may from time to time ordain
and establish.

In my simple way of looking at those two specific provisions, Article I gives Congress the power to establish the U.S. Tax Court, and so it claims to be an Article I court, and Article III notes that the power is judicial.

I guess I'll just have to wait and see if Kent tips his hand and is more explicit as to some frivolous point he is trying to make.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[AndyK]

Kent is in the pasta versus wall mode.

He thinks that if he throws enough noodles at the wall, eventually one will stick.

This theory is not grossly dissimilar to the comcept of "there HAS to be a pony in there"

[operabuff]

The Tax Court's status as an Article I court has resulted in a lot of nonfrivolous litigation over the years. There have been questions regarding whether the court had equitable powers in addition to the specific power to determine tax granted by statute - years ago, it believed that it did not. But the court has gradually taken on various equitable powers over the years. The most conspicuous recent example is whether the court could exercise equitable recoupment. In Estate of Mueller v. Commissioner, the court held that it did.

One issue that made it to the Supreme Court was whether the Tax Court judges could appoint Special Trial Judges to hear regular cases. That was resolved affirmatively in Freytag, in 1990.

I don't recall seeing a published case on whether the court has the power to send someone to jail for contempt. Anecdotally, I've heard that it happened at least once.

[wserra]

I don't recall seeing a published case on whether the court has the power to send someone to jail for contempt. Anecdotally, I've heard that it happened at least once.

(c) Incidental powers
The Tax Court and each division thereof shall have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, at its discretion, such contempt of its authority, and none other, as—
(1) misbehavior of any person in its presence or so near thereto as to obstruct the administration of justice;
(2) misbehavior of any of its officers in their official transactions; or
(3) disobedience or resistance to its lawful writ, process, order, rule, decree, or command.

[Dr. Caligari]

The distinction between the Tax Court, as an an Article I court, and other federal courts being Article III courts....

I'm just a tyro, but I don't see the distinction that you and Kent seem to be trying to make between Article I and Article III.

Article I
Section 8

The Congress shall have power to...
constitute tribunals inferior to the
Supreme Court.

Article III
Section 1

The judicial power of the United States,
shall be vested in one Supreme Court,
and in such inferior courts as the
Congress may from time to time ordain
and establish.

In my simple way of looking at those two specific provisions, Article I gives Congress the power to establish the U.S. Tax Court, and so it claims to be an Article I court, and Article III notes that the power is judicial.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

What you're missing is the clause in Article III, section 1, which says that "[t]he Judges, both of the supreme and inferior courts, shall hold their offices during good Behavior," meaning that they serve for life unless impeached. Tax Court Judges serve for fixed 15-year terms, which is permitted because it is not an "Article III court."

[Famspear]

I don't recall seeing a published case on whether the court [the U.S. Tax Court] has the power to send someone to jail for contempt. Anecdotally, I've heard that it happened at least once.

An example where a taxpayer (a tax protester, in fact) was adjudged to be in criminal contempt by the Tax Court: Trohimovich v. Commissioner, 77 T.C. 252, 261-62 (Aug. 10, 1981):

ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that Stanley J. Trohimovich is guilty of criminal contempt of Court and his punishment is imprisonment for 30 days and he is hereby committed to the custody of the United States Marshal for a period of 30 days.

The Tax Court did, however, stay the execution of the order, provided that Trohimovich would file a timely appeal. I don't know whether he appealed, and I don't know whether he actually served the time in jail or not.

One of this bozo's arguments was that all laws enacted by U.S. Senators since the time of ratification of the Seventeenth Amendment (which of course would include all statutes enacted by Congress as a whole from 1913 to 1981, when this case came up) were invalid, on the goofy theory that the Amendment itself was not properly ratified.