Kent Hovind Since Sept 2013

[Paths of the Sea]

Certainly reads like some of the stuff Kent has
been doing, not to mention fairly illiterate as well.

Yeah, Kent might be trying to pull some of that stuff were it not for his public defender who knows better than to try that sort of thing.

Kent keeps complimenting his public defender, but I have to wonder what is really going on with all of that and what might be said if Kent's people come up with a private lawyer to defend his case.

I would like to see some media type catch that public defender for an interview, or at least some questions, and find out what he's willing to say about the case.

Hansen's antics in Nebraska could jeopardize the timing of the trial, or could result in splitting the defendants and having separate trials. Time will tell.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[notorial dissent]

My suspicion is that all the crackpot lawyers who might actually go along with Kent and his delusions are now either dead, disbarred, suspended, or otherwise not interested, since I don't really think Kent has all that much money to pay the freight, so that pretty well limits the field. Becraft is the only one still practicing with anything like a record, and he has gotten more careful in his old age, and he charges a pretty hefty for what he does do. I'm impressed that he and the PD haven't come to a parting of the ways yet, but it is still early days.

[Paths of the Sea]

I'm impressed that he and the PD haven't come to a
parting of the ways yet, but it is still early days.

I find that rather interesting as well. Kent, apart from generically complimenting the public defender, hasn't really provided any details as to what is going on with that and there's been no new filings regarding motions or anything else reflective of the legal strategy that the public defender might be proposing.

I look forward to seeing how that plays out.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[darling]

Kent... hasn't really provided any details as to what is going on with that and there's been no new filings regarding motions or anything else reflective of the legal strategy that the public defender might be proposing.

Probably the smartest thing he can do right now is keep his mouth shut.

(For "right now" read "ever".)

[.]

Has he ever had a lawyer he had to pay out of his own pocket?

If he had, and the lawyer was any good, he would have been told in no uncertain terms to shut his yap and stop writing anything on any topic even remotely related to his case(s), and further that if he violates either rule the lawyer will quit on the spot.

Which probably would have resulted in him looking for a new lawyer quite frequently.

[Paths of the Sea]

Has he ever had a lawyer he had to pay out of his own pocket?

Considering his career has been built on living out of other peoples' pockets, that is a tricky question to answer.

If he wanted to, in my opinion, he could get his people to fund a private lawyer for him. It's just another one of the games Kent plays.

For instance, when they thought they could buy back all of that property early on, as I recall, Eric raised $300,000 or so in about 2 weeks...but the deal fell through.

Also, one of Kent's website administrators mentioned on the Forbes' site that Kent had millionaires supporting him.

I figure the games continue to be played in secret with all of that, and Ernie Land's legal defense fund, as far as the public record, is stuck on $2,200 without any registered contributions in over 10 days; and over half of that is from 2 contributors, one of which is Forbes' own Peter J. Reilly who also issued an unanswered challenge to Kent.

Kent's earlier criminal trial had private lawyers for Kent and Jo, and Kent's Tax Court case had a private lawyer. Well, Jerold Barringer represented Jo on behalf of Kent in the criminal trial and Barringer represented Kent in the Tax Court case. Maybe that doesn't count.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Samphire]

Considering his career has been built on living out of other peoples' pockets, that is a tricky question to answer.

In 1996 the IRS confiscated all Kent's cars and vans in a jeopardy assessment covering 3 years of personal income tax. Kent claimed that a third party paid the assessment in order that the vehicles could be recovered. I suspect that he made the claim to maintain the fiction that he is not personally liable for income tax. As Kent wrote:

One friend from the ministry who knew a lot about the IRS and had seen some of their incredible abuses, came to visit the house and said, 'Brother Hovind, you need your cars back, even though you are 100 percent right, it will take you years to fight them and get them back. I will pay the money for you and get your cars returned.' So he paid the $10,000 and had the cars returned, and I did not hear from the Internal Revenue Service for several more years.

For instance, when they thought they could buy back all of that property early on, as I recall, Eric raised $300,000 or so in about 2 weeks...but the deal fell through.

Maury, I have it in my mind that someone is supposed to have paid the IRS to recover some if not all the houses (not DAL) on behalf of the Hovinids. Ernie Land claims on his website somewhere that he has earned millions out of his Ponzi scheme. Millionaires generally (I imagine) prefer to keep their noses clean with their tax inspectors so would not wish to be seen financing a known and outspoken tax protestor. But Ernie might.

Kent's earlier criminal trial had private lawyers for Kent and Jo, and Kent's Tax Court case had a private lawyer. Well, Jerold Barringer represented Jo on behalf of Kent in the criminal trial and Barringer represented Kent in the Tax Court case. Maybe that doesn't count.

In the pre-sentence prison telephone calls Kent seemed to have little respect for Barringer and, given his extremely weak performance in the criminal trial on Jo's behalf, I was surprised when Barringer represented her for the tax trial. Barringer also acted for Kent in later years in relation to his own tax trial - although the association now seems to have been terminated.

[darling]

Has he ever had a lawyer he had to pay out of his own pocket?

Hovind did pay for three opinion letters, including one from Nebraska attorney G. Guy Curtis, which basically trotted out nonsense. One of them concludes that given the contents of the letter, "You should have no problem defending yourself, should the government try to criminally prosecute you for not filing an income tax return."

Of course, the government did not criminally prosecute Kent for not filing an income tax return, so that was money well spent.

[Paths of the Sea]

I was surprised when Barringer represented her for the tax trial.

Barringer also acted for Kent in later years in relation to his own tax trial - although the association now seems to have been terminated.

As I recall, Jo did not have Barringer as her counsel of record. I recall her having some legitimate counsel from the beginning and, instead of go to U.S. Tax Court along with Kent and his separate docket, she went to some effort, successfully, to have her trial separate.

Even at that, she might have come out a lot better had she "flipped" on Kent, but it appears she was not yet ready to tell the real story, the rest of the story.

Barringer, as I further recall, is the one who filed Kent's U.S. Tax Court petition and was counsel of record until the very end; that's when I was chatting with Kent via his CorrLinks account and advised him of what was going on with his case.

Kent claimed he didn't know what was going on with that (he also claimed he was unaware that Jo's case had been decided earlier).

Curiously, it was shortly after that that Barringer was dismissed from the case, as I recall, after Kent filed something indicating that Barringer was out and he was going pro se.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

Hovind did pay for three opinion letters, including one
from Nebraska attorney G. Guy Curtis, which basically
trotted out nonsense. One of them concludes that given
the contents of the letter,

"You should have no problem defending yourself,
should the government try to criminally prosecute
you for not filing an income tax return."

Of course, the government did not criminally prosecute Kent
for not filing an income tax return, so that was money well spent.

I have heard Kent claim to have consulted with lawyers and such, but I am not aware of any on-line references where he has posted any "opinion letters".

You got links?

It also seems interesting to me how Kent seems to be promoting the idea in preparation for his current trial that he really is ignorant about all of these things going on around him and that he really, really, really, really believes (i.e., the Cheek Defense) what he tells people about not being subject to the laws of the land.

Maybe we will get to see how that works out for him this time around.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Samphire]

I have heard Kent claim to have consulted with lawyers and such, but I am not aware of any on-line references where he has posted any "opinion letters".

Kent did post the letters but, unfortunately, he only posted them to Scott Schneider the IRS special agent who referred to them at trial to show that Kent was a tax protestor and not acting in good faith.

The letters were not from bona fide mainstream lawyers or CPAs. David Gibson, who was a very knowledgeable tax expert, tried to give him good free advice on two occasions but Kent did not want to know. I have seen no evidence that despite his protestations that he sought to know the correct law Kent ever contacted any general practice professional adviser.

[.]

tried to give him good free advice on two occasions but Kent did not want to know.

Which makes him a garden-variety TP. None, not one wants to know anything that would contradict their sacrosanct self-serving hogwash. Add a little Jesus, a few dinosaurs and a little structuring to the recipe, but you still get the same rotten meal.

The defining difference between TPs seems to be who can dig the deepest hole. Irwin and Ed/Elaine are still at the top of that heap. Lifers.

[notorial dissent]

Kent does not want advice, information, or help that in any direction or way that in any way contradicts the fantasy world he has constructed for himself, and there is no point in attempting it, as he will reject it out of hand. He has proven that time and time again. Kent is not and is never in the wrong, therefore any anything to the contrary has to be false.

[darling]

I am not aware of any on-line references where he has posted any "opinion letters".

You got links?

Kent did post the letters but, unfortunately, he only posted them to Scott Schneider the IRS special agent...

I have copies of opinion letters prepared for Kent by Guy Curtis, Fred Ortiz and John Schlabach. I forget where they came from - I think from the "Richard Stands" website Kent created before his trial. I will try and dig them up - they are not in front of me right now - but they are really not that interesting.

Here's an example of someone else trying to use Guy Curtis, Fred Ortiz and others to keep them out of trouble.
http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ ... CM.WPD.pdf

"Petitioner submitted documents, including six letters signed by purported "tax professionals", in support of his argument.

These letters were from:
Sherwood T. Rodrigues, Certified Public Accountant (Ohio), Sunnyvale, California
Michael L. Kailing, Tax Accountant, Honolulu, Hawaii
Guy G. Curtis, Attorney at Law, Imperial, Nebraska ...
William T. Conklin, M.A., Communication & Language Expert, Denver, Colorado
Fred M. Ortiz, Tax Consultant, Kailua-Kona, Hawaii
...

The main theme of the letters, and petitioner's argument, is that he is not required to file a Federal income tax return because it is a voluntary practice... The letters also contain additional hackneyed arguments that have been universally rejected by this and other courts...

Petitioner asserts that he relied on the advice rendered to him in the letters he submitted
to the Court. As evident from the documents he submitted to the Court, petitioner had to search nationwide to procure materials in support of his meritless positions. While reliance on advice as to whether a return must be filed may constitute reasonable cause, the person giving that advice must be competent to render that advice and the reliance on that advice must be reasonable. By the very nature of the advice given, petitioner's reliance on that advice was not reasonable."

[Famspear]

These letters were from:
[ . . . ]
William T. Conklin, M.A., Communication & Language Expert, Denver, Colorado [ . . . ]

Dan Evans has a dossier on Conklin at:

http://tpgurus.wikidot.com/william-conklin

[Paths of the Sea]

I have copies of opinion letters prepared for Kent by Guy Curtis, Fred Ortiz and John Schlabach. . .

I will try and dig them up. . .

Here's an example of someone else trying to use Guy Curtis, Fred Ortiz and others to keep them out of trouble.

http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/ ... CM.WPD.pdf

As evident from the documents he submitted to the Court, petitioner had to search nationwide to procure materials in support of his meritless positions. While reliance on advice as to whether a return must be filed may constitute reasonable cause, the person giving that advice must be competent to render that advice and the reliance on that advice must be reasonable. By the very nature of the advice given, petitioner's reliance on that advice was not reasonable."

It might be nice to have least have them for reference if you can find them.

I think the court comments are right on target. It's as if some of those guys make a business out of trying to provide folks like Kent some cover for their criminal activities (i.e., the Cheek defense).

I think Kent has been hard at work with that in his recent interviews; claiming he doesn't understand what is happening to him or the court system, denying he's a tax protester, claiming he pays everything he owes, blah, blah, blah.

Might help with a jury if he proceeds to trial.
We will see.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[darling]

It might be nice to have least have them for reference if you can find them.

Enjoy!
http://www.filedropper.com/drdino

I think the court comments are right on target. It's as if some of those guys make a business out of trying to provide folks like Kent some cover for their criminal activities (i.e., the Cheek defense).

Absolutely. As you can see, these are generic cut-and-paste letters.

I think Kent has been hard at work with that in his recent interviews; claiming he doesn't understand what is happening to him or the court system, denying he's a tax protester, claiming he pays everything he owes, blah, blah, blah.

Whenever I have heard such a thing, Kent has always been very careful to say "I pay all taxes for which I am liable." He never seems to mention that he is also of the belief that, with respect to the IRC, "I know of no tax that I am liable for."

[Paths of the Sea]

http://www.filedropper.com/drdino

Thanks!
Did I ever tell I wasn't much of computer person.

I managed to download the file, but then couldn't figure out how to open it; too many options and possibilities and warnings they may or may not work.

Got an easy way for me to open the file, or what to click on to download a program that will open the file?

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

Got an easy way for me to open the file, or
what to click on to download a program that will open the file?

Never mind.

I must have done something.

I went back to check and the file opened up without me doing anything more.

Sorry for the bother!

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast

[Samphire]

Kent hates to be ignored so just moving him back to the top of the threads.