http://www.thedailymash.co.uk/news/scie ... 4030784397
Seems he was nearly right after all.
![Laugh :haha:](./images/smilies/005.gif)
It looks like they have worked out that problem and the Matthews v. RationalWiki case now has been given it's own account:Paths of the Sea wrote:
Alexander Otis Matthews,
Plaintiff,
v.
The RationalWiki Foundation, et al,
Defendants.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA
On PACER, the above case is filed as an Amended Complaint to another unrelated case that Matthews filed and carries the case number of:
Case 1:14-cv-00207-LO-TRJ
I am looking forward to the Government's reply, after which I think the Court might act swiftly to dispose of the appeal, sustaining the Tax Court determination or maybe remanding it for some reason or another.darling wrote:
And here's a link to Kent's appeal brief,
filed the same day as the order.
http://www.sendspace.com/file/bjt0rq
The petitioner in this case was Jo Hovind. It cannot help your case when, in her own legal defence, your own wife accuses you of fraudulent intent. But were you there at the family breakfast, lunch and dinner tables throughout those years when Kent tediously and unceasingly discussed his tax avoidance schemes, Jo? Indeed you were. I wonder if Kent is even aware of the document.Petitioner also contends that any fraudulent intent during the years at issue was attributable to Mr. Hovind.
Well, Kent is an expert in such matters so he should know. Over the past few years he has served around 15 lawsuits - and lost every one.Apparently, they don't know how the law works.
If only Oprah could get to Jo and get her to talk!Samphire wrote:
But were you there at the family breakfast,
lunch and dinner tables throughout those
years when Kent tediously and unceasingly
discussed his tax avoidance schemes, Jo?
Indeed you were.
Poor Jo, an innateley honest and decent woman I am sure but now branded for the rest of her life as a common criminal for having served her husband in submission as her fundamentalist beliefs dictated.For now, it looks like folks are making sure Jo is kept quiet in order to protect the family business and make like the relationship with Kent is just fine.
while Kent crazily ranted on over the years over the legal difference between Kent Hovind and KENT HOVIND (there isn't one) or should she have complied with the wiser teaching of 1 Peter 2:13 -But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.
If she didn’t know then she certainly does now.Submit yourselves to every ordinance of man for the Lord's sake: whether it be to the king, as supreme;
If only Jo was liable then the IRS could only go after her assets. Those in Kent's name would be safe. Joint assets, I think, would be safe too. It's outside my area of knowledge though.Samphire wrote:Is it correct to say, Darling, that even in the extremely unlikely that Kent managed to get the entire judgement against him overturned, that against Jo would still stand and she would still be liable for the payment over to the IRS of their entire wealth so nothing of a material nature is to be gained by Kent's current appeal?
... returned to him or its rightful owners.Secondly, under para 12 of the pleadings Kent claims that none of the disputed income or property belonged to him personally but, later in the request for relief, he asks that it all be returned to him. Whoops!
Kent treated the trust/corporation sole as his alter ego, so will the government.Doubtless, it is also significant that although Kent purported to sign over his properties to the trust/corporation sole (or whatever) the mortgages remained in his own name. Whoops!
We may never know.Samphire wrote:
Until Kent recants I suspect their marriage is doomed.
I hope we don't. And, who cares, anyway?Paths of the Sea wrote:We may never know.
Agreed - that's a very big IF.IF Kent wins (so unlikely as to be laughable) and recovers some financial resources, Jo would have fairly strong grounds for a civil suit to recover her damages from him.
Each legitimate post referring to Kent Hovind raises this thread higher on the various search engine hit lists.. wrote:...
I don't get your incessant posting (you account for about half of all posts on this combined thread) regarding this clown every time he or one of his acolytes takes finger to keyboard.
...
As far as I can figure out, PotS has taken exception to the fact that Hovind has creationist beliefs and had the audacity to promulgate those views through his non-profit organizations and to claim that these beliefs were correct as opposed to scientific views. The fact that Hovind decided to adopt tax protester beliefs in an effort to further evade paying income tax is probably what brought PotS to our fabled halls. The fact that it is extremely rare to see PotS posting to a non-Hovind thread makes it probably safe to say that he/she would have never came to Quatloos if Hovind had stayed off the Kool-ade barrel.. wrote:Did he do you some injustice along the way?