LPC wrote:
What on earth does "take nothing of the defendants" mean?
This has been addressed generally, but specifically, among other things, Kent was asking for about a $1,000,000.00 in compensatory and punitive damages which he ain't going to get any part of.
Of course, given his current circumstances, it will be interesting to see if Kent attempts to appeal the dismissal.
Of course he will, that's about all he has left in life at this point is futile pointless gestures.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
My take at the very least is that Kent still either really or intentionally doesn't get it. You can guess which side of the question I land on.
You're quite right, he's either still in denial, or just plain dishonest about his actions and motives, as he is still denying having done anything wrong.
He sure seems to want out to that Half Way house awfully badly, but he doesn't seem to get it that that barge has long ago set sail, and by his own handiwork.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
Paths of the Sea wrote:It reflects, to me, that Kent remains unrepentant and does not fully appreciate the role his public defender has in this case.
Kent has quite the scavenger hunt there for his attorney to pursue. I am not sure that Kent appreciates that public defenders are generally overworked and underpaid and that his attorney is going to be focused solely on the issues of Kent's upcoming trial instead of being at Kent's beck and call on the public dime.
I think you pretty well hit it on the head, Kent DOESN'T appreciate and has got a clue about what his PD is there for. They may try and get his papers back for him, but that is problematical, and all this PD is paid for is to represent him at the upcoming hearing(s). Then unless his luck is really bad, he's gone.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
I have just received an email from Aubrey Falconer, creator of the FreeHovind web site, asking him whether he still supports Hovind. He responded:
"My worldview gravitated towards Deism
shortly after launching the FreeHovind site,
and now falls squarely within the rationalist /
atheist / humanist camp."
"I'm currently focused much more on personal
development than on worldview evangelism.
Should probably take that site down at some
point, but it's embarrassingly popular and I'd
rather put it to a productive use -balance out
some of the damage I've done to the world...
Any ideas?"
All the best,
Aubrey
-------------------------------------------------------
Hovind Motion For Reconsideration - Filed October 22, 2014
(excerpts)
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
Case No. 3:14mc53/MCR
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
Plaintiff,
vs.
KENT E. HOVIND,
Defendant.
DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION AND DISMISSAL OF NOTICE OF CRIMINAL CONTEMPT PROCEEDINGS AND SHOW CAUSE ORDER
COMES NOW the defendant, KENT E. HOVIND (“Hovind”), by and through his undersigned attorney, and moves the court to reconsider and dismiss its Notice of Criminal Contempt Proceedings and Show Cause Order (in the interests of justice, judicial economy and other reasons). In support of this motion, Hovind states:
1. On July 8, 2014, the Court entered its Notice of Criminal Contempt Proceedings and Show Cause Order (the Notice)(doc. 1). The Notice was filed as a result of the Order entered by Court on the same date in Hovind’s original case (3:06cr83) granting the government’ motion to require Hovind “to show cause why he should not be held in criminal contempt for violating an order of the Court” .
2. Hovind made his initial appearance in this district on August 15, 2014, at which the Office of the Federal Public Defender was appointed to represent him. Undersigned counsel (counsel) was subsequently assigned to handle the case.
3. Counsel has been preparing for trial (Mr. Hovind maintains that he did not knowingly or willfully violate the order in question). Counsel has met with Hovind at the Santa Rosa County Jail on a number of occasions and has, among other things, been reviewing records, documents, recordings, etc. that the government has stated it may try to introduce into evidence at the trial. As can be seen, the discovery material includes numerous emails and telephone calls involving Hovind obtained from the Bureau of Prisons for the period from approximately July 5, 2013, to approximately January 1, 2014, and from June 10, 2014 to July 30, 2014 (a period that is after Hovind filed the lis pendens in question in late May 2013 — earlier emails and telephone calls cannot be obtained because they were not kept that long).
Counsel has read the emails and listened to the telephone calls that the government has noted are most pertinent. Some of the emails and telephone calls show that Hovind was responsible for filing the lis pendens in question (a matter that is not disputed).
However, in counsel’s opinion, there are none that tend to disprove Hovind’s position that he did not knowingly and willfully violate the order in question. In fact, in counsel’s opinion, there are one or more that tend to support his position.
Counsel is unaware of any other evidence (other than emails and telephone calls) that tends to establish with the necessary certainty that Hovind acted with the requisite intent. Counsel certainly has not seen any “smoking gun” type evidence so to speak.
He understands that the government may have a different view of the anticipated evidence and its significance.
His purpose in discussing his review of the discovery material is to inform the Court that he believes that at a trial the evidence will be far from clear regarding Hovind’s intent and the issue will be a difficult one for the jury
to accurately determine.
The jury will most likely need to read/consider prior court filings, some of which are quite lengthy, to try to decide the intent issue (something that makes this case unusual).
Hovind would want to try to introduce his own prior court filings, and other filings, regarding the intent issue.
For purposes of the instant motion for reconsideration Hovind asks the Court to consider the unique difficulties in trying this case and the anticipated uncertainty of the evidence regarding the main issue in the case, i.e., his intent, and, of course, his position that he did not knowingly and willfully violate the order in question.
This should be considered in conjunction with the time and expense of a trial to all involved.
4. In addition to what has been stated above, Hovind asks the Court to consider that the effect of the filing of the lis pendens in question was to somewhat delay the sale of the properties in question to Hovind’s own family members.
All of the properties in question have now been sold to Hovind’s family members (or to a company owned by a family member).
Some were sold before the Court entered the Notice and some just after. To the best of counsel’s knowledge,
all of the properties that were seized by the government as a result of Hovind’s original case have been sold or disposed of. Thus, there is no future danger of liens or lis pendens being filed against seized property (Hovind has no intent to do so anyway). The harm caused by Hovind’s filing of the lis pendens was minimal.
4. In addition, Hovind asks the Court to consider that he has already suffered consequences as a result of the Notice. When the Notice was filed, Hovind was in the process of being transferred to the Federal Prison Camp in Yazoo City (he has served all of his sentence at camps with the exception of time periods when he was being transferred from one camp to another).
Because of the Notice, he was instead brought to the Santa Rosa County Jail where he has been since shortly before his initial appearance on August 15th. Being incarcerated at the county jail is obviously much more difficult than being at a camp.
Beyond that, by not being at the camp, Hovind cannot be considered for halfway house placement (officials at the camp have informed counsel of this).
Hovind has, counsel believes, been approved for house arrest starting in February 2015 (his release date is August 2015), but he is eligible for halfway house placement prior to going to house arrest. By being at the county jail, he is losing the opportunity to be considered for halfway house placement. His house arrest placement may also be in jeopardy.
He clearly has been and is suffering consequences as a result of the Notice.
5. This Court clearly has the power to bring a criminal contempt charge and the power to
dismiss it.
Hovind asks the Court to consider whether in light of all pertinent factors (whether discussed in this motion or not), the continuation of this proceeding serves the public interest and the interests of justice or of judicial economy, and is necessary to try to achieve a goal that must be achieved.
After doing so, he hopes the Court will find that the continuation of this proceeding is unnecessary and dismiss the Notice.
WHEREFORE, Hovind moves the Court to grant the requested relief. It is assumed that the government opposes this motion.
/s/ Thomas S. Keith
THOMAS S. KEITH
Attorney for Defendant
3 W. Garden Street, Suite 200
Pensacola, FL 32502
Wow, a rational argument on Kent's behalf! Explain that miracle, atheists (not wanting to start a religious debate, just mocking Kent's attitudes towards others)
I don't know if I quite buy it, but I wouldn't be outraged if a judge did.
Fmotlgroupie wrote:
I don't know if I quite buy it,
but I wouldn't be outraged if a judge did.
I'm not sure the judge is going to be buying anything like that on motion, especially this judge who has considerable Hovind experience.
I suppose one can tell all sorts of stories in a motion, but what are the facts and what is the Government's potential rebuttal? I have some ideas.
Also, Kent never put on a defense in his earlier criminal trial.
Kent never prosecuted his own U.S. Tax Court case.
Kent is good at telling stories and even perjuring himself when it suits his purposes, and seems to claim "ignorance" when it suits his purposes.
I think Kent should be compelled to testify if he wants the Court/Jury to buy off on his ignorance defense. Let him take the stand, be grilled on cross examination, and let the jury decide.
I think the PD did a much better job than I expected or thought he'd be able to do with Kent as his client. The filing is coherent and actually looks like a professional job done. The problem, at least as I see it, for Kent, is that I really don't think the gov't would have gone to all this trouble if they didn't think they had sufficient case to get what they wanted. I pretty much agree with Path's summation of Kent's prior strategy.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
4. In addition to what has been stated above, Hovind asks the Court to consider that the effect of the filing of the lis pendens in question was to somewhat delay the sale of the properties in question to Hovind’s own family members.
Do you remember when Eric made the "one minute to midnight" appeal video? It couldn't have been to secure funding for his family to re-purchase the properties, could it? Surely not.
Also, without checking back, wasn't there a post some time ago in which Kent claimed that he could not possibly be responsible for filing the lis pendens because (a) he was locked up 24 hours a day, (b) didn't have any lined paper, & (c) had lost his pencil? The implication was that his brilliantly legal-minded crook of a cell mate had filed it without his knowledge or instruction.
I suppose the problem for the government is that in the normal course of events a heavy fine might be sufficient punishment but, in Kent's case, he is effectively bankrupt (in ironic fulfilment of his own vow of poverty) so a fine would be of no effect.
the effect of the filing of the lis pendens in question was to somewhat delay the sale
It was only a little bit, a tiny bit obstructive. I make my own rules. So, there.
Samphire wrote:[He] had lost his pencil
Well, that's it. All must be forgiven. An inmate without his pencil is a tax warrior without his great and mighty sword. Never mind that you can probably get a pencil from just about any guard who doesn't hate your guts. It's not like this clown was in a super-max lock-up.
This poor, deluded doofus won't give up his idiocy until he dies.
All the States incorporated daughter corporations for transaction of business in the 1960s or so. - Some voice in Van Pelt's head, circa 2006.
Samphire wrote:
...wasn't there a post some time ago in which Kent claimed that he could not possibly be responsible for filing the lis pendens because (a) he was locked up 24 hours a day, (b) didn't have any lined paper, & (c) had lost his pencil?
I remember that scenario as well and always considered it just some more of Kent's word gamesmanship.
Some accused Kent of filing the lis pendens and he treated it as a claim that he personally appeared at the courthouse in Florida to file the documents and he or his people denied that Kent could have done such a thing.
It reminds me of that other similar game that Kent played with the RationalWiki folks. An article they posted on Kent had someone referring to him as "tax fraudster" and Kent tried to make a big deal out of how he was not charged or convicted of "tax fraud". It was something like that and Kent filed a defamation suit in federal court. It seems that suit has died a natural death as the RationalWiki folks were never officially served.
Kent does appear to like to play such games; looking for words and/or word arrangements he can exploit and, as previously noted, if an important matter turns on Kent's knowledge of something he seems to like to claim ignorance.
Will the public defender complete his assignment and see the case through to the end?
Opinion issued by court as to Appellant Kent E. Hovind.
Decision: Affirmed
Opinion type: Non-Published.
Opinion method: Per Curiam.
(2)
IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT
(excerpts)
No. 13-12520
KENT E. HOVIND,
Petitioner-Appellant,
versus
COMMISSIONER OF IRS,
Respondent-Appellee.
Petition for Review of a Decision of the U.S. Tax Court
(October 23, 2014)
Before TJOFLAT, JORDAN, and ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM:
Hovind timely filed a counseled petition to contest the deficiency in February 2010, alleging that he was not liable for any deficiency because Pensacola, Florida, where he lived during the years relevant to the deficiency notice, “ha[d] not been located within any internal revenue district since at least 1999.” He also asserted that he was a minister of Creation Science Evangelism (“CSE”) and that the notice had improperly attributed CSE’s income to him.
More than three years later, on March 15, 2013, the Tax Court granted the Commissioner’s motion for entry of decision, finding that deficiencies, penalties, and additions to Hovind’s tax were due as stated in the deficiency notice. In its final order, the Tax Court noted that Hovind had failed to respond to the Commissioner’s motion as directed by the court in both January and February 2013.
This appeal followed.
On appeal, Hovind argues that the Tax Court’s final order was unconstitutional because, as a federal prisoner subject to frequent facility transfers, he had not received notice of relevant motions and orders.
He further argues that his activities as a minister for CSE were not taxable and that the amounts in the deficiency notice were inconsistent with the IRS’s internal records.
After careful review of the record and consideration of the parties’ briefs, we affirm.
We review for an abuse of discretion the Tax Court’s entry of a decision on a notice of deficiency based on the petitioner’s failure to properly prosecute a petition for a redetermination of the deficiency.
The record shows that the Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in granting the Commissioner’s motion for entry of an order establishing the deficiency based on Hovind’s failure to prosecute the petition properly. See Crandall, 650 F.2d at 660. Hovind repeatedly delayed Tax Court proceedings by failing to file responses to motions, participate in discovery, or follow court orders.
He also consistently advanced frivolous arguments and refused to acknowledge the Tax Court’s authority, asserting his individual sovereignty as a free inhabitant foreign to the United States.
And our review of the events leading up to the final order in this case makes clear that, particularly from the perspective of the Tax Court, Hovind effectively had abandoned the case.
Hovind’s case had been set for trial in March 2012. In November 2011, Hovind’s counsel filed a motion to withdraw Hovind’s petition for a redetermination of any deficiency.
Counsel stated in the motion that he had conferred with Hovind, that Hovind had “no intention of proceeding in tax court at any time in the future,” and that counsel was being terminated by Hovind upon completion of one task: dismissing the petition.
The Tax Court denied the motion, asserting jurisdiction to decide the controversy, but struck the case from the trial calendar due to Hovind’s unavailability for trial in March.
The court directed the parties to file a status report by December 2012.
In December 2012, the Commissioner filed a status report stating that Hovind’s counsel had informed the Commissioner that counsel had had no contact with Hovind since November 2011, despite attempts to contact him.
Based on the status report and Hovind’s earlier representation that he had “no intention of proceeding in tax court,” the Tax Court ordered the Commissioner to file a motion for entry of decision.
The Commissioner did so.
On January 9, 2013, the Tax Court ordered Hovind to respond to the Commissioner’s motion by January 30, 2013, and warned him, “Failure to comply with this Order will result in the granting of [the Commissioner’s] motion and entry of decision sustaining the determinations set forth in the notice of deficiency on which this case is based.”
Instead of filing a response to the motion, Hovind filed a pro se affidavit, dated January 28, 2013, stating that his attorney did not have authority to file the petition and that Hovind was never informed that retaining an attorney affected his “independence as a free inhabitant from US court jurisdictions.”
The Tax Court construed the affidavit as a motion to withdraw counsel, granted it, and then extended Hovind’s deadline to respond to the IRS’s motion for entry of decision until March 6, 2013.
The Tax Court also directed service of a copy of the motion to Hovind at the address listed in the affidavit, which also appears to be Hovind’s currently listed address.
Hovind did not respond.
The Tax Court entered the final order in this case on March 15.
Given this record, including the explicit abandonment of the petition by Hovind, the extensive length of the proceedings, and the Tax Court’s generous accommodation of Hovind, we are not persuaded that any alleged lack of notice prejudiced his ability to present his challenges to the deficiency notice to the Tax Court.
Consequently, we conclude that the Tax Court did not abuse its discretion in dismissing Hovind’s case under both its own rules and this Court’s precedent.
Finally, we decline to address Hovind’s challenges to the merits of the deficiency judgment entered against him—that he is exempt from taxation as a minister of CSE and that IRS records contradict the Tax Court’s decision—because these arguments were not timely and properly presented to the Tax Court for resolution.
Instead of filing a response to the motion, Hovind filed a pro se affidavit, dated January 28, 2013, stating that his attorney did not have authority to file the petition and that Hovind was never informed that retaining an attorney affected his “independence as a free inhabitant from US court jurisdictions.”
Unbelievable. The court seems to have leant over backwards to try to accommodate Kent's obstructionism.
Kent has always maintained that he didn't know what was going on with his case because his papers never caught up with him during his spasmodic tour of the southern United States but the court's above recital of the history provides a very different picture showing that the truth of the matter appears to be that Kent had effectively and deliberately separated himself from the litigation by declaring himself "UStateless".
Samphire wrote:
...the court's above recital of the history
provides a very different picture...
One trivial point that didn't make it into the Court's analysis is that the time frame mentioned by the Court is the same time frame during which I was directly and personally involved in email exchanges with Kent via his CorrLinks account and as requested by Kent and his people.
If Kent was actually ignorant of the status of his Tax Court case as he claimed, despite having an alleged "legal dream team" assisting him, I am the one that informed Kent of the "entry of decision" motion before the Court and tried to press Kent to tell me what he planned to do about it.
Kent never would tell me!
It seems Kent always seems to plead ignorance regarding certain, substantive points related to his cases.
Also, from the Tax Court website I got the impression that Barringer had actually filed a motion withdrawing from the case. It now appears that was not the case; the Court's explanation indicating that it simply treated Kent's filing as a motion to have Barringer withdrawn.
Barringer has his own problems and is not likely to give an open, honest account of his dealings with Kent on this matter; or so it seems.
Hooray for Kent.
He's off the hook on the criminal contempt charge.
Good news, huh!
Why is that!
Uh, oh!
It's because Kent Hovind has been indicted along with one of his legal dream team members, Paul John Hansen, on other criminal charges and they didn't want to pile on with further pursuit of the criminal contempt charges at this time.
I don't have the documents at this time, but I copied the following docket entries from the criminal contempt record and the new case:
(1)
Docket Entry #18 October 24, 2014
Full docket text for document 18:
ORDER - The Gvt shall advise the Court in writing
within 5 days if this criminal contempt action should
be dismissed in light of the newly filed criminal
indictment (re: 3:14cr91-MCR).
(Internal deadline for referral to judge if Gvt's response
not filed earlier: 10/29/2014).)
Signed by CHIEF JUDGE M CASEY RODGERS on 10/24/2014.
(2)
Docket Entry #19 October 24, 2014
NOTICE re Dimissal of Contempt Action by UNITED
STATES OF AMERICA re [18]
Set Deadlines,, Order, (EGGERS, TIFFANY)
(3)
Docket Entry #1 for Case # 3:14-cr-00091-MCR-1
USA v. HOVIND & HANSEN
October 21, 2014
MOTION Requesting an Order Sealing the Indictment
by USA as to KENT E HOVIND, PAUL JOHN HANSEN.
(4)
Docket Entry #12 Case #3:14-cr-00091-MCR-1
USA v. Hovind & Hansen
October 24, 2014
ENDORSED ORDER granting [12] Motion to Unseal Indictment
(Case) as to KENT E HOVIND (1), PAUL JOHN HANSEN (2).
Signed by MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES J KAHN, JR on 10/23/2014.
(5)
Docket Entry Case #3:14-cr-00091-MCR-1
October 24, 2014
Set/Reset Hearings as to KENT E HOVIND:
Arraignment rescheduled for 10/30/2014 11:00 AM
in U.S. Courthouse Pensacola before MAGISTRATE
JUDGE CHARLES J KAHN JR. Initial Appearance
rescheduled for 10/30/2014 11:00 AM in U.S.
Courthouse Pensacola before MAGISTRATE JUDGE
CHARLES J KAHN JR.
Let's hear it for that great mastermind and all 'round legal genius and strategist Kent who has now managed to parlay a simple contempt charge into a much bigger felony charge. Way to go Kent. Doesn't much look like he, or any of his good buddies, are going to be seeing that half way house any time soon, if ever, now does it? See what a little bit of faith and a lot of stupidity can do for you.
The fact that you sincerely and wholeheartedly believe that the “Law of Gravity” is unconstitutional and a violation of your sovereign rights, does not absolve you of adherence to it.
ORDER - The Gvt shall advise the Court in writing
within 5 days if this criminal contempt action should
be dismissed in light of the newly filed criminal
indictment (re: 3:14cr91-MCR)
Could it be that my previous (not too serious) allegation that Kent had lost his pencil was incorrect and that, in fact, it was Paul Hansen who had borrowed it to draft and file the lis pendens on Kent's behalf? If so, are the pair looking at a far more serious charge of conspiracy?
It makes one wonder whether the government put the two airheads in the same cell deliberately. It's some 800 miles from Hansen's home in Omaha to Pensacola so what were the chances of the two gentlemen coming together in the same camp?
Under 18 U.S.Code §371:
If two or more persons conspire either to commit any offense against the United States, or to defraud the United States, or any agency thereof in any manner or for any purpose, and one or more of such persons do any act to effect the object of the conspiracy, each shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both.
If, however, the offense, the commission of which is the object of the conspiracy, is a misdemeanor only, the punishment for such conspiracy shall not exceed the maximum punishment provided for such misdemeanor.
If Kent is doing everything in his power to stay as far away from Jo's rolling pin for as long as possible then, in falling in with Hansen, he is a genius.
But, of course, to make its case the government is going to have to prove that Kent knew that Hansen had knicked his pencil. After ten years of dodging the bullet Kent will finally have to give evidence in open court to try to avoid another couple of years in gaol.
(not wanting to start a religious debate, just mocking Kent's attitudes towards others)