Kent Hovind Since Sept 2013

[Paths of the Sea]

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.

In the context of the Hovind trial we have the added circumstance of both Kent and Jo having to separately deal with that issue. It has been indicated that they both had separate lawyers, if you want to call them that (i.e., Barringer & Richie).

My opinion is that the lawyers and Kent would have intimidated Jo into doing their bidding, consistent with Kent's apparent Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

Had Jo spoken up, she might well have avoided going to federal prison and I suspect her cross-examined testimony would have further incriminated Kent.

And so it goes!
We may never hear the story from Jo's unintimidated perspective.
Maybe she is need of some real help!
Maybe she is just fine with her present lot in life!

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Samphire]

Maury,

Now you have included "intent" in your proposition we agree. Thanks for the links.

On another small point, shouldn't that be Richey rather than Richie?

https://plus.google.com/114013143292650 ... l=uk&hl=en

A further aspect of Kent's latest recorded telephone call is his criticism of Richey for failing to press Schneider in cross-examination. Kent accused the judge of preventing Richey from questioning Schneider about the missing pages in his Master File failing to mention that his personal tax position was not at issue in the trial and so any questions about the file were irrelevant.

What was reported at the time and still at:

http://atheistexperience.blogspot.co.uk ... slips.html

is:

Just to give you an idea of what an inept loser Hovind has in his attorney, Alan Richey, this little gem: when IRS Agent Scott Schnieder was on the stand, Richey spent most of his cross throwing out stupid red herrings about Schnieder's qualifications and doing his best to tap dance around the facts. This so pissed off the judge that Richey was admonished for his irrelevant and pointless questioning.

"Does everyone in your office pay their fair share of taxes?" Richey asked Schneider. Schneider didn't respond because Assistant U.S. Attorney Michelle Heldmyer objected and the judge agreed it was irrelevant.

When Richey spent several minutes looking for documents, Rodgers excused the jury. She then told Richey he was wasting their time. Rodgers then suggested Richey come in earlier or stay later to make sure his files were organized.

Gales of derisive laughter!

Not quite (as in nothing like) how Kent portrays the position.

[Paths of the Sea]

Kent accused the judge of preventing Richey from questioning Schneider about the missing pages in his Master File failing to mention that his personal tax position was not at issue in the trial and so any questions about the file were irrelevant.

I think it might be interesting if someone were to press Kent to fully explain and document the basis for his claim that his transcript has him, had him shown to be an "underground coal miner in the Virgin Islands".

I have a vague memory of that issue being explored before and it showing simply that Kent did not know how to properly interpret the codes, but my memory might be off on that and I may be thinking about a different case.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Samphire]

I think it might be interesting if someone were to press Kent to fully explain and document the basis for his claim that his transcript has him, had him shown to be an "underground coal miner in the Virgin Islands".

The tax coding is quite correct because Kent produces precisely the same amount of coal as the average V.I. coal miner. Nil.

It seems that the IRS has a sense of humour after all.

[LPC]

I think it might be interesting if someone were to press Kent to fully explain and document the basis for his claim that his transcript has him, had him shown to be an "underground coal miner in the Virgin Islands".

We're all Virgin Island gunsmiths.

[Hyrion]

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.

I'm not refering to it as a Legal issue. But sticking your head in the sand and letting a Court case proceed without you (whether criminal or civil) is not the best choice you can make for you. That is where the issue lies: what I see as self-destructive acts because one is "rebelling for the sake of rebelling".

When a Court has been provided with only one set of facts to proceed to a conclusion on - I wouldn't be surprised if it isn't always a default judgement for the side that choose to present facts.

Judges closely question every defendant who says he/she doesn't want to testify.

I never said anything about "not wanting to testify". What I did say was:

the defendant refused <snip> to defend

Getting a Lawyer to represent you is the start of taking steps to provide a defense. But saying "this Court is a kangaroo Court and I simply won't take part" is not even begining to start to provide a defense for oneself.

I totally agree lots of people chose not to testify but that doesn't mean they - with their Lawyer - are prevented from presenting a defense to the Court.

[Hyrion]

To clarify, when I state "the individual is not providing a defense" I'm not speaking from the Legal perspective.

I'm speaking from a philosophical perspective based on whether or not their "defense" even makes sense in the context of the situation.

For example, in the Meads case where Mr. Meads (my impression) "refused to enter a contract with the court" (my impression from memory, I've only read the ruling once and haven't reviewed other docs in the case) when the Judge asked about the funds that Mrs Meads had already acquired then (I assume) proceeded to order full disclosure from Mrs Meads on the situation.

Mr. Meads could very well have responded "yes, she withdrew those funds", but instead resisted answering the Judges question which was in his benefit.

From the Legal perspective:
1) yes, the individuals believe such claims as "this is an Admiralty court and has no jurisdiction over me because we're not on water" is their defense
2) yes, the Court is accepting that defense as the defense the individual wishes to use (even if the end result is that it has no bearing on the case)

But to myself, responding with a nonsense response is "choosing not to defend". Extreme example:

Judge: How do you plead? Innocent or Guilty?
Accused: Orion
Judge sighing: Default plea of Innocent entered.

My philosophical opinion on that exchange: the defendant is choosing not to take part, in other words, to not defend themselves.

In the future, I'll attempt to better differentiate between my own philosophical opinion vs the actual goings on in a given court case.

[Paths of the Sea]

Regarding Kent's challenge to Peter J Reilly via the God's Property Radio folks, Peter has just posted the following note on page 5 of the readers' comment section of the following article:

"We've started discussions about the logistics."

See:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreill ... -ministry/

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

My philosophical opinion on that exchange:

the defendant is choosing not to take part,
in other words, to not defend themselves.

In Kent's case, his decision not to put on a defense has allowed him to exploit his efforts at martyrdom for the sovereign citizen cause and present his defense in the public square where he can more easily falsify the details, inflame his followers, and evade challenges to his claims.

Even now, Kent seems to be posturing without making clear his intentions. Sometimes he claims go be eager to take the stand and at other times claims there no chance he will be acquitted (suggesting he won't "take part").

We'll see how it goes!

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

Hot off the press from Peter J. Reilly!

http://activepassivitiesandothermoronic ... e-and.html

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

[NYGman]

Hot off the press from Peter J. Reilly!

http://activepassivitiesandothermoronic ... e-and.html

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

From the comments:

Peter ReillyNovember 25, 2014 at 8:56 AM
You have a better grasp of many of the details than I do, although those were the sort of questions I was proposing to ask. I have just heard from the podcasters. To put it in a somewhat grandiose manner "my people" were talking to them about logistics. Based on some advice they received, the podcaseters have decided not to withdraw the challenge, but to delay it indefinitely.

Looks like game off (Postponed indefinitely)

[notorial dissent]

I suspect it comes down to Kent can't control the forum so he doesn't want to play, as I'm sure he knows Reilly will ask some questions he doesn't, and the prosecution very much does, answered, and I am sure from things Reilly has said on his own blog, that he would ask some questions Kent has been studiously avoiding so far.

I will have to admit that this private blog is far deeper than the pieces he has been posting at Forbes.

[Paths of the Sea]

I will have to admit that this private blog is far
deeper than the pieces he has been posting at
Forbes.

It may not clearly appear to be the case, but Forbes does exercise a certain degree of control over its site. I recall when Kent filed suit against RationalWiki that Peter indicated he would probably not have much, if anything, to say about that due to past experiences of the sort he did not wish to revisit (as many others note, even frivolous assaults can be quite a bother).

In his note about the status of the proposed meeting with Kent, Peter wrote, in part:

- "To put it in a somewhat grandiose manner
- "my people" were talking to them about logistics.
- Based on some advice they received, the podcasters
- have decided not to withdraw the challenge, but to
- delay it indefinitely."

I'm wondering if Peter had reference to the Forbes folks wanting to get real formal about the production and Dan & Sam simply weren't up to following through on their own challenge; especially with the apparent feedback from others who support Kent that they should probably not put Kent and Peter together.

I hope we get to hear more about the details of the negotiations.

Dan and Sam boldly included the following in their challenge:

- "Surely someone (Peter) who has the guts to
- slam someone (Kent)...has the guts to let Kent
- explain himself to him (Peter)..."

I think we are finding out just how "gutless" Kent and his people are regarding such things, but maybe they will surprise us all yet and the meeting will be produced.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[darling]

I suspect Kent's attorney had a quick word about the wisdom (or lack thereof) of commenting in public about issues concerning your upcoming criminal trial.

[Paths of the Sea]

Another interview with Kent Hovind, with commentary from an alleged, bonafide lawyer:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgIGPY- ... e=youtu.be

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

Hovind & Reilly Interview May Still Happen??

Peter's update:

http://activepassivitiesandothermoronic ... ovind.html

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

[Paths of the Sea]

Another challenge, this time anonymously, from Kent Hovind's people!

https://www.facebook.com/2peter3/posts/749013688508706

Date: Thursday, November 27, 2014
Time: About 1:00 PM MT

I want to begin by making a statement about any of the subjects of the entrapment of the Church with Corporations, the enslavement of free men with, strawman, 14th amendment citizens, birth certificate/dealer origin title, free State citizen vs. U.S. citizen, admiralty law vs common Constitutional law, the gold fridge flag ,the know your customer banking regulation, the health care chip, evolution vs creation, the government brain washing in school systems, or most of the other conspiracies of government which are all tied into the wealthy, such as the Kennedy assignation and the immediate dissolution of taking our US Treasury back, the secret societies such as Knights cavalier even dating back to Nimrod, which all tie in to Satan’s dominion and his well planned work.

These subjects however are so well planned and thought out that the sheep in the world will not put the time and effort into learning the truth, so 99% of the public blindly go about disputing the mountain of facts and circumstantial evidence, so they do not have to dig in and learn the facts for themselves.

So yes, I believe these conspiracies have so much fact and circumstantial evidence proving them for someone with education or knowledge to sincerely believe them.

Now for the patriots, for the freemen, for the Liberty Alliances out there, Kent Hovind’s case is a perfect opportunity for any of them to prove their theories in Court will be practical and actually work.

With Kent’s worldwide notoriety here lies great opportunity to prove common law, Bill of Rights, and the U.S Constitution is still the highest law of this land.

Provide me some documents with proper arguments to file in Federal Court that will prove the facts.

Kent stood before a Magistrate at the U.S. Federal Court on 7/13/2006 where a sealed (unconstitutional secret grand jury) indictment was issued against, KENT HOVIND, they claim aka Kent Hovind, in case number 3:06-CR-00083-MCR-CMT and asked to enter a plea in which Kent enter the plea,

"Subordination of False Muster”,

the Magistrate, acting in my opinion under color of law, responded,

“I will not take that plea and will enter a plea of not guilty.”

Kent responded,

“I object.”

The Magistrate responded,

“Overruled, I am entering a plea of not guilty.”

Kent said,

“I take exception.”

The Magistrate responded,

“Overruled.”

And then moved to enter a not guilty plea on record.

So here is the chance for someone out there to prove their common law theories by providing proper documents to set this case straight and have the magistrates, judges and agents removed.

I take no copyright on this message and anyone can post this challenge where ever they wish.

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

[Paths of the Sea]

Another from Peter J. Reilly

http://activepassivitiesandothermoronic ... n-law.html

Ernie Land Challenges Common Law Theorists And
Others To Make Kent Hovind A Test Case

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

[Samphire]

Maury,

The recent focus has concentrated on the structuring matter so I've lost track of what the sentencing was on the withholding issues detailed in the first 12 charges. I cannot now find any record of the sentencing and the legal documents on 2Peter3 seem to be restricted to those served by Kent rather than giving the overall picture. Can you help?

On a second point, I note that Kent is claiming to have written over 15,000 letters whilst in prison. Back in September last year he claimed to have written over 10,000 so in fourteen months Kent has managed to write some 5,000 letters, a rate of about 12 a day. You have to admire either his industry - or his imagination.

[Paths of the Sea]

A Thanksgiving interview with Kent Hovind with his sympathizers at God's Property Radio:

http://godspropertyradio.podomatic.com/ ... 7_14-08_00

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!