Kent Hovind Since Sept 2013

[Samphire]

I get the impression that Gea is ready to go wherever Kent goes.

Perhaps she won't need to. Perhaps Kent is planning to emigrate to Vancouver though, if he does, I'm not sure how he'll take to Ms.Geena's nose ring:

http://www.clubcreation.org/uploads/2/4 ... 6_orig.jpg

[Paths of the Sea]

Samphire,

You may have already resolved the allocation of income issue in Jo Hovind's Tax Court case, but if you haven't, here's a link and excerpt from the Court's decision:

https://www.ustaxcourt.gov/UstcDockInq/ ... ID=5865552

"Accordingly, we find that petitioner (Jo Hovind)
had unreported income equal to 50% ofthe net
profit attributable to CSE, defined as CSE's gross
receipts reduced by the Schedule C expenses allowed
in the notice of deficiency, for the years at issue."

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

Kent's Latest False and/or Misleading Structuring Claims

http://diggingforthetruth.podomatic.com ... 0_31-08_00

Comments from Kent:

5:00ff Kent raises questions as to just who is the "United States", claiming he's not sure just which one is after him!

6:10ff Kent brings up the gold fringed flag, claiming its silent notice you are under maritime law when you enter the courtroom.

7:15ff Kent claims to want the truth to get out about his case.

7:25ff Kent claims he isn't going to win in court or the mainstream media.

8:00ff Kent calls for Congress to get a million phone calls asking for an investigation of Hovind's case.

8:40ff Kent claims to be just an ordinary guy who doesn't understand all this court stuff.

8:45ff Kent claims, before God, that he doesn't believe he broke any laws that apply to him.

11:40ff Kent characterizes the Government's statement to him that "so, it is a crime to take out less than $10,000".

11:50ff Kent claims they told him that is how people avoid having the bank report transactions.

12:05ff Kent claims the law requires 2 transactions in the same day; claiming there was no structuring.

13:30ff Kent repeats his claim that there must be 2 transactions in the same day.

13:40ff Kent repeats his claim that the law requires 2 transations in the same day and that total over $10,000.

22:00ff Kent asks what exactly is the jurisdiction of the federal courts.

22:15ff Kent claims we are under marshal law and it needs to be challenged.

23:15ff Kent claims he's never been offered a plea deal. He claims he would consider a deal where the Government gives up, expunges his record and pays him $25,000,000.

25:25ff Kent is back on structuring and claims if you took out $100.00 a week for a 100 weeks you would have committed 100 crimes of structuring.

And so ended Kent's personal part of the interview program.

Here again is the proposition that Kent and his people don't want to discuss with me!

Proposition for Discussion

Withdrawing less than $10,000 in a single transaction
with the intent to evade bank reporting requirements
is a violation of the law and regulations and was at
the time of the Hovind withdrawals in question and
was the legal standard used to convict Kent Hovind
of “structuring”.

- Maury Enthusiast: Affirm
- Kent Hovind: Deny
- Hovind Apologist: (To Affirm or Deny)

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

[Samphire]

Proposition for Discussion

Withdrawing less than $10,000 in a single transaction
with the intent to evade bank reporting requirements
is a violation of the law and regulations and was at
the time of the Hovind withdrawals in question and
was the legal standard used to convict Kent Hovind
of “structuring”.

- Maury Enthusiast: Affirm
- Kent Hovind: Deny
- Hovind Apologist: (To Affirm or Deny)

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

I think that the wording would be less ambiguous if it were amended to:

"Withdrawing more than $10,000 in multiple transactions each of less than $10,000
with the intent to evade bank reporting........."

simply because to withdraw less than £10k in a single transaction would never get you over the £10k mark. Presumably this was the bone of contention at the trial which is why I would like to see the trial transcript.

However, I accept that the magic words are "with the intent to evade bank reporting." which goes to the mens rea of the matter and which Kent is always careful not to address.

In this I agree with notorial in accusing Kent of being a lying liar. The Public Defender must be pulling his hair out if he ever can steel himself to listen to the prison interviews. Kent has got more holes in his feet than his Boss.

Kent says “the pastor told us not to take out more than £10,000 at a time” but never addresses the obvious questions “Who is the pastor and why did he give you that advice?”. I assume the answer to the first is Pastor Mooneyhan (autocorrecting to Moneyman) a known Sovereign. Also, I think Jo referred to Glen Stoll giving the same advice but, again, denying that the reason for the advice was made known to her.

The very fact that both Ken and Jo remembered the advice indicates that they were aware that withdrawing more than £10k in a single transaction might give rise to difficulties with the IRS and therefore there can be no excuse that as responsible adults they culpably failed to ask the reason for the restriction thus giving a reasonable ground for a jury to infer the Hovinds’ intent.

Also, Kent harps on about withdrawing money every 12 days. Why 12 days? Any business dealing in cash for wages would normally withdraw the money weekly, fortnightly or monthly. Kent paid wages fortnightly and withdrawals of £9k every 12 days equates to $10.5k every 14 days. Bingo!

Undoubtedly, despite Kent’s disingenuity, to my mind he was well aware of the reason for the restriction. In the pre-sentencing prison tapes he admitted talking to Glen Stoll on the phone for hundreds of hours about taxation and trust issues and it is inconceivable to my mind that structuring was not discussed. To deny intent over structuring Kent tries to rely on the fact that he moved to paying by cheque 3 years before the IRS raised the issue but, of course, the reason for the change was the need to balance the resultant incriminating audit trail against the possible personal physical danger to Jo in regularly withdrawing large sums of cash. I conjecture that if Jo had not complained about the risk to herself Kent would have continued to insist on payment in cash.

Had Kent put on a defence at his original trial the prosecutor would have had a field day in cross-examination but because it didn’t happen Kent has spent the last seven years putting his own gloss on these issues to the effect that he may well have convinced himself of his sinlessness.

[Moderater: The Observer - removed reference to religious belief that violates our "no politics/religion" policy]

[darling]

Thanks, darling, but the document you refer to is the transcript of the sentencing hearing whereas I am trying to find the transcript of the actual trial.

Fair enough. As far as I know, Kent's specific claim of transcript alteration is the judge's alleged 'rape' comments in the sentencing hearing.

Kent says “the pastor told us not to take out more than £10,000 at a time” but never addresses the obvious questions “Who is the pastor and why did he give you that advice?”. I assume the answer to the first is Pastor Mooneyhan (autocorrecting to Moneyman) a known Sovereign. Also, I think Jo referred to Glen Stoll giving the same advice but, again, denying that the reason for the advice was made known to her.

From Kent Hovind's sentencing transcript:
"Pastor Mooneyhan and later Glen Stoll said don't go over $10,000 without specific permission from me. I said why not? He said, oh, it just causes trouble. I said what kind of trouble? He said don't worry about it, just if you need to go over $10,000, call me, we'll do it."

Because Kent seems the type of person to take "don't worry about it" for an answer.

Had Kent put on a defence at his original trial the prosecutor would have had a field day in cross-examination...

And there you have the real reason Kent did not testify.

[darling]

The government filed a superseding indictment a couple of days ago.

I believe the only difference is that they struck paragraph 14 of Count One of the original indictment.

14. Between on or about April 10, 2013, and April 15, 2013 G.S. [likely Glen Stoll] caused a Claim of Lien Affidavit of Obligation, with attachments, to be mailed and delivered to the Clerk of Court of Escambia County, Florida. The properties identified as being subject to said lien were the nine properties previously ordered forfeited to the United States and 13 Oleander. Due to an insufficient amount of fees being submitted with the documents, the Clerk of Court returned the documents to defendant PAUL JOHN HANSEN as directed in the Claim of Lien Affidavit of Obligation

My uneducated speculation is that the removal of this paragraph means the government no longer has to prove that G.S. mailed the Lien and, if he did, that Kent or Paul knew anything about it.

[Paths of the Sea]

The government filed a superseding indictment a couple of days ago.

I believe the only difference is that they struck paragraph 14 of Count One of the original indictment.

14. Between on or about April 10, 2013, and April 15, 2013 G.S. [likely Glen Stoll] caused a Claim of Lien Affidavit of Obligation, with attachments, to be mailed and delivered to the Clerk of Court of Escambia County, Florida.

Maybe they are saving that for Glen Stoll's indictment!

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

Proposition for Discussion

Withdrawing less than $10,000 in a single transaction
with the intent to evade bank reporting requirements
is a violation of the law and regulations and was at
the time of the Hovind withdrawals in question and
was the legal standard used to convict Kent Hovind
of “structuring”.

- Maury Enthusiast: Affirm
- Kent Hovind: Deny
- Hovind Apologist: (To Affirm or Deny)

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

I think that the wording would be less ambiguous if it were amended to:

"Withdrawing more than $10,000 in multiple
transactions each of less than $10,000
with the intent to evade bank reporting........."

simply because to withdraw less than £10k in a single transaction would never get you over the £10k mark. Presumably this was the bone of contention at the trial which is why I would like to see the trial transcript.

I disagree.

My contention is that the sum of the structuring transaction(s) does not have to be more than $10,000.00 and Kent's case stands for that proposition.

That's why, at least in part, each single transaction of less than $10,000.00 was a separate count of structuring.

In order to understand the applicable law and Kent's misrepresentation of it, I think it is important that my proposition be accepted as a fair reflection of the issue and what Kent and his people don't like to talk about.

Part of what goes along with that is that, at the time of Kent's involvement with structuring, it was no longer necessary to prove that he knew structuring was wrong; it was only necessary to know the bank was required to report certain transactions and he "structured" his to avoid having the bank report.

Kent and his people often go back to the Ratzlaf case for reference, but the law was changed after that Supreme Court decision to eliminate the provision that required a showing that the structurer knew that structuring was illegal.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Samphire]

My contention is that the sum of the structuring transaction(s) does not have to be more than $10,000.00 and Kent's case stands for that proposition.

If this were the case I cannot see how "intent" could possibly be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In Kent's case it was the overwhelming pattern of behaviour which proved the mens rea.

That's why, at least in part, each single transaction of less than $10,000.00 was a separate count of structuring.

But only after the pattern of repeated behaviour and hence the mens rea had been proved. I would need some convincing that Kent would have been convicted of structuring had the prosecution put up just a single withdrawal of $9,500 as evidence. After all, it is not withdrawal of the money which is the offence but the "withdrawal with intent" and to show intent you need to demonstrate a pattern of such withdrawals.

A differentiation has to be made between a single deal such as, perhaps, the selling of a stolen car and the operation of a continuing business. The first would require at least two transactions and the second multiple if intent is to be proved. Even in the first example the defence could put up a great many reasons as to why it took two payments to complete the deal and thus to defeat an allegation of "intent". The benefit of the doubt would be in favour of the defendant.

In order to understand the applicable law and Kent's misrepresentation of it, I think it is important that my proposition be accepted as a fair reflection of the issue and what Kent and his people don't like to talk about.

In order to understand the applicable law and Kent's misrepresentation of it, I think it is important that my proposition that it is necessary to demonstrate intent be accepted as a fair reflection of the issue and what Kent and his people don't like to talk about.

Part of what goes along with that is that, at the time of Kent's involvement with structuring, it was no longer necessary to prove that he knew structuring was wrong;

Agreed. Trained as Kent was by Richard Mooneyhan, abetted by convicted felons Guy Curtis and Fred Ortiz and constantly mentored by scam artist Glen Stoll this is undeniably a reasonable assumption.

it was only necessary to know the bank was required to report certain transactions and he "structured" his to avoid having the bank report.

Agreed. But to be able to know this you have to prove intent and it is the great number of transactions at around $9,500 over a period of years which overwhelmingly proves Kent's intent beyond any reasonable doubt.

Maury, can you put up any precedent in which a single payment of less than $10,000 led to a conviction for structuring?

[Famspear]

The trial has been re-set for January 5, 2015.

[Paths of the Sea]

If this were the case I cannot see how "intent" could possibly be proved beyond reasonable doubt. In Kent's case it was the overwhelming pattern of behaviour which proved the mens rea.

I would need some convincing that Kent would have been convicted of structuring had the prosecution put up just a single withdrawal of $9,500 as evidence.

After all, it is not withdrawal of the money which is the offence but the "withdrawal with intent" and to show intent you need to demonstrate a pattern of such withdrawals.

In order to understand the applicable law and Kent's misrepresentation of it, I think it is important that my proposition that it is necessary to demonstrate intent be accepted as a fair reflection of the issue and what Kent and his people don't like to talk about.

Maury, can you put up any precedent in which a single payment of less than $10,000 led to a conviction for structuring?

I think the law and regulations are clear regarding the fact that a single transaction of less than $10,000, with the intent to evade the bank's reporting requirement, is a violation of the law.

Obviously, with limited resources the Justice Department is going to pick and choose the best cases, in its opinion, for prosectuion.

No doubt, Kent's pattern of behavior, coupled with the testimony that he knew what he was doing, helped remove any reasonable doubts in the jury's mind.

No, I don't have any single transaction cases that were prosecuted, but I am confident that the law and the regulations thereunder are clear that such a single transaction, with intent, is a violation of the law. Maybe some will try to look for such a case; maybe not.

My proposition includes the "intent" issue and, typically, Kent's people jump on that and start whining about it before admitting that Kent's representation of the law, independent of the "intent" issue, is erroneous. Some have demanded proof of Kent's "intent" the way they demand proof of "evolution"; denying there is any evidence of either instead of simply stating that they are not satisfied with the evidence.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

It's not a case of a single transaction prosecution, but I found it rather quickly in browsing around and it is somewhat interesting in that it reflects an on, off, on again conviction case and provides some discussion of the rule of law on the matter, as noted below, and I think it supports my proposition:

http://openjurist.org/424/f3d/183/unite ... macpherson

27.

[A] person structures a transaction if that person, acting alone, or in conjunction with, or on behalf of, other persons, conducts or attempts to conduct one or more transactions in currency, in any amount, at one or more financial institutions, on one or more days, in any manner, for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements under section 103.22 of this Part.

"In any manner" includes, but is not limited to, the breaking down of a single sum of currency exceeding $10,000 into smaller sums, including sums at or below $10,000, or the conduct of a transaction, or series of currency transactions, including transactions at or below $10,000.

The transaction or transactions need not exceed the $10,000 reporting threshold at any single financial institution on any single day in order to constitute structuring within the meaning of this definition.

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

[Paths of the Sea]

Ha! Ha! Ha!

You will notice they didn't dare challenge Kent to come out to me!

Kent's People Challenge Peter J. Reilly

http://godspropertyradio.podomatic.com/ ... 0_03-08_00

(excerpts from above reference - listen to recording there for more details)

Property Radio is also issuing a counter-challenge to Peter J. Reilly of Forbes to talk to Hovind himself and give Kent a chance to talk to him man to man.

GPR will either come record the conversation or have someone else come meet Mr. Reilly with recording gear to record the discussion and then upload it on the spot un-edited to be fair. In fact we will even put money in an account so Peter J. Reilly does not have to pay for the Call and will attache his phone number to the account so that he does not have any excuses not to talk to Hovind himself.

Surely someone who has the guts to slam someone in Articles Daily has the guts to let Kent explain himself to him in a even more respectful manner.

Email Peter J. Reilly if you would like this to come into fruition and email us if you would like to help Dr. Hovind in any way.

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

[Paths of the Sea]

http://godspropertyradio.podomatic.com/ ... 0_03-08_00

At the 1:07:00ff mark there is a discussion about the trial transcript because the hosts asked Kent about where to go to get a trial transcript.

Kent claims he doesn't know where you can get the transcript, though he claims he paid $6,000.00 for a transcript which he claims has been altered, and then he refers folks to PACER.

He says it would be boring, a waste of time, because it has been altered!

Yeah, right!

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Hyrion]

I think the law and regulations are clear regarding the fact that a single transaction of less than $10,000, with the intent to evade the bank's reporting requirement, is a violation of the law.
<snip>
My proposition includes the "intent" issue<snip>

Here's the kicker: while it's much harder for the Officials to prove the intent (without a confession by the individual) it's incredibly, incredibly easy for the defense to prove "other" intent. And all they need is 1 viable "other" intent to exist.

Your Honor, Ladies and Gentlemen of the Jury, I really don't know why we're here.

Here's my receipt of the time with regards to the car I purchased for $9,994.95.

Here's a copy of my money draft for same, date stamped by the bank.

Here's my registration of the same day.

Here's the add in the newspaper from the car dealership posting the car at $9,519.00 + GST.

My intent was obviously not avoid any particular Law - but simply to purchase an automobile which is sitting parked out front.

Once the person had explained to the investigator they "withdrew the funds via bank draft to purchase a car" - I would be shocked if the investigator proceeded with the charges anyway.

The Prosecutor would have one heck of a mountain to climb to prove to the Judge/Jury that the real intent was to avoid the reporting requirement.

A criminal trial does not occur in a vaccuum. Neither does the investigation and discussion between the Investigator/Prosecutor and the individual/Defense.

At the trial - assuming the situation gets that far: The Prosecutor has to prove the elements of a particular crime exist. It's up to the defense to then prove (if the Prosecution provides a reasonable case for the Judge/Jury) that the situation is not what the Prosecutor has presented.

Your focus is on the intent... on the proving thereof. Many have already answered and given examples of how the intent could be reasonably proven.

My question is: Do you believe it is reasonable to expect people to be able to easily provide an "other" intent?

Perhaps if someone is having such a hard time proving "other" intent.... they didn't really have an "other" intent.

[Paths of the Sea]

Your focus is on the intent... on the proving thereof. Many have already answered and given examples of how the intent could be reasonably proven.

My question is: Do you believe it is reasonable to expect people to be able to easily provide an "other" intent?

Perhaps if someone is having such a hard time proving "other" intent.... they didn't really have an "other" intent.

Are you wanting to discuss such things with me.

I don't think I have focused on "intent", just notice it as there is interest in the discussion thereof in the context of Kent's case.

Of course, a defendant might be able to convince a jury of an intent independent of evasion or, alternatively, simply demonstrate to the satisfaction of the jury that the Government has not met its burden of proof.

In Kent's case, he never put on a defense one way or the other and the affirmative evidence and testimony was sufficient for the jury's finding of "guilty" on all charges.

I think it's interesting how Kent spins everything that goes against him, even to proposing he could have defended himself and got acquitted if it weren't for the incompetence of his hand-picked, sovereign citizen approved counsel.

Kent and Jo both made it clear to the judge that they did not want to put on a defense. I don't accept Kent's "spin" on why that was the case and suspect we may never get to the bottom of that part of Kent's case. Later, it appears Kent decided to put off not prosecuting his own Tax Court case on his hand-picked, sovereign citizen approved, often sanctioned lawyer Jerold Barringer.

Now Kent is foaming at the month over the chance to finally take the stand in January, as if he really will even while declaring there is no way he can win.

Will Kent finally take the stand?

We will see!

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

Here are some excerpts from the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals in the Hovind case and in response to Kent's and Jo's claim that the indictment was insufficient and they did not "structure".

(Begin excerpts)

The Hovinds Indictments Were Sufficient.

It is a well-established principle that “‘[t]he sufficiency of a criminal
indictment is determined from its face.’” United States v. Sharpe, 438 F.3d 1257, 1263 (11th Cir. 2006) (quoting United States v. Salman, 378 F.3d 1266, 1268 (11th Cir. 2004)). “For an indictment to be valid, it must ‘contain the elements of the offense intended to be charged, and sufficiently apprise the defendant of what he must be prepared to meet.’” United States v. Bobo, 344 F.3d 1076, 1083 (11th Cir. 2003) (quoting Russell v. United States, 369 U.S. 749, 763, 82 S. Ct. 1038, 1047 (1962)). When the indictment tracks the language of the statute, “‘it must be accompanied with such a statement of the facts and circumstances as will inform the accused of the specific offense, coming under the general description, with which he is charged.’” Id. (quoting Russell, 369 U.S. at 765, 82 S. Ct. at 1048).

The indictment sufficiently alleged Kent’s tax crimes.

The indictment also sufficiently alleged the Hovinds’ structuring crimes.
The Hovinds argue that each of the structuring counts fails to state an offense
because each count fails to allege that the Hovinds structured an amount that
exceeded $10,000 and, without this allegation, the indictments were defective.

The Hovinds contend that the language used in the financial reporting statute did not suggest that structuring could involve a cash transaction of less than $10,000.

These arguments ignore the plain language of the statute and our interpretation of it.

A person is prohibited from “structur[ing] . . . any transaction” to “evad[e] the
reporting requirements[,]” 31 U.S.C. § 5324(a)(3), of domestic financial
institutions. Those reporting requirements are activated upon the “payment,
receipt, or transfer of United States coins or currency[,]” 31 U.S.C. § 5313(a), “of more than $10,000.” 31 C.F.R. § 103.22(b).

In other words, section 5324(a)(3) forbids a person from transacting in amounts less than $10,000 to avoid detection by and reporting of the transactions by a financial institution. United States v. Phipps, 81 F.3d 1056, 1060–61 (11th Cir. 1996).

That interpretation is also consistent with the intent of Congress for the structuring provision to “operate[] ‘without regard for whether an individual transaction is, itself, reportable . . . .’” Id. at 1061 (quoting S. Rep. No. 433, 99th Cong., 2d Sess. 22 (1986)).

Because a cash transaction does not have to equal or exceed $10,000 to constitute a structuring offense, the district court did not err by denying the Hovinds’ motion to dismiss.

(End excerpts)

[Hyrion]

Your focus is on the intent...

I don't think I have focused on "intent"

You lost me.

Proposition for Discussion

Withdrawing less than $10,000 in a single transaction
with the intent to evade bank reporting requirements
is a violation of the law and regulations and was at
the time of the Hovind withdrawals in question and
was the legal standard used to convict Kent Hovind
of “structuring”.

My proposition includes the "intent" issue

I obviously misunderstood what you meant by: intent is/was an issue

I also obviously misunderstood what context you were proposing your summation of a particular law to be discussed under.

If it's to be discussed under the context specifically related to Hovind, I simply don't see any "intent issue".

If I was to identify a primary issue (besides a deliberate breach of Law), I'd focus on the issue being "the defendant refused to exercise his constitutional right to defend". That's a pretty serious issue no matter what one is accused of doing.

[Paths of the Sea]

If it's to be discussed under the context specifically
related to Hovind, I simply don't see any "intent issue".

If I was to identify a primary issue (besides a deliberate
breach of Law), I'd focus on the issue being "the defendant
refused to exercise his constitutional right to defend".
That's a pretty serious issue no matter what one is accused
of doing.

Kent was convicted of intentionally structuring transactions to evade the bank reporting rules; so found the jury beyond a reasonable doubt.

For whatever reason, Kent and Jo opted out of putting on a defense. As they say, the evidence/testimony spoke for itself and the jury convicted.

(I don't accept Kent's explanation as to why no defense was put on!)

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[.]

If I was to identify a primary issue ... I'd focus on the issue being "the defendant refused to exercise his constitutional right to defend". That's a pretty serious issue no matter what one is accused of doing.

No, it isn't. Unless a defendant has been threatened, intimidated, unduly pressured or promised something in return for not testifying, it's virtually never an issue on appeal.

Judges closely question every defendant who says he/she doesn't want to testify. Is this your decision after considering all of the evidence presented in this trial along with the advice of your lawyer? Did anyone promise you anything? Did anyone try to intimidate you? Did anyone pressure you? Etc., etc., etc. It usually takes 5 or 10 minutes longer than it should because judges want to make a complete record on the matter should there be an appeal.

Lots of people chose not to testify, for various reasons, but mostly because they would open themselves up to a lot of questions they don't want to answer or for which they don't have a good answer. That's their decision and choice, not an issue. If they really wanted to testify, even though it might not be in their own best interest, they would have. And some do, usually to their regret.

I say this as someone who is not a lawyer, but with confidence that none of the many lawyers on this board will differ significantly with me on this point.