Kent Hovind Since Sept 2013

[Paths of the Sea]

Rudy calls the judge again today!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-e8LH94gK3Y

SIncerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Samphire]

I do wish you would shut up, Rudy.

I want Kent out of prison and learning the rudiments of biological evolution of which the poor man still knows nothing. If you keep haranguing the judge by filling up her answerphone with your blatant nonsense and she is the sort of judge you think she is then this won't happen in my lifetime. Fortunately for Kent, I don't think she is that sort of judge.

But don't prove me wrong.

[Paths of the Sea]

Here's the Forbes preview leading up to the release of the Reilly - Hovind Interview promised for tomorrow:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreill ... ctor-dino/

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

This should not come as news to those in the know, but it looks like this kinda makes it official and continues the unanswered question, "What are Hansen and Hovind to do with their public defenders?".

Why Hansen & Hovind are no longer filing anything with the Court regarding their criminal contempt, conspiracy, and mail fraud charges!

Filed January 20, 2015

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

v.

PAUL JOHN HANSEN

Case No. 3:14cr91/MCR

O R D E R

Your document, File for Record - Notice (received on 1/16/2015), was referred to the undersigned with the following deficiencies:

Any party represented in a suit by counsel of record shall not thereafter take any step or be heard in the case in proper person, absent prior leave of court; nor shall any party having previously elected to proceed in proper person be permitted to obtain special or intermittent appearances of counsel.

For these reasons, IT IS ORDERED that:

The submitted hard copy of the document shall be returned by the Clerk without electronic filing. It may be resubmitted after the above noted deficiencies are corrected.

DONE and ORDERED this 20th day of January, 2015.

s/ M. Casey Rodgers
M. CASEY RODGERS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

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

[Paths of the Sea]

The Reilly - Hovind Interview!

Peter will be following up later today with a Forbes article featuring the video.

The video, for now, is here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DiCTdH5OrZg

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

Today in the continuing coverage from Forbes' contributor Peter J. Reilly:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreill ... x-blogger/

[Samphire]

Robert,

From your Facebook page:

I received letters from many of you expressing the
view that sometimes those convicted of heinous crimes SUCH AS RAPE are
subject to less time than Mr. Hovind is facing in this case.

The "SUCH AS RAPE" wording is my suggested interpolation but perhaps what Kent's supporters heard was the judge quoting the sort of comment that she had read in those letters. It wasn't her wording but theirs. I cannot see where else in the sentencing transcript any such like wording could comfortably sit.

Secondly, one other matter I found significant in the sentencing hearing was Ms.Heldmyer's comment concerning Kent's oft-repeated claim that there had been three grand juries set up to examine his tax issues. She said:

The only fact that I recall Mr. Hovind saying that may not have come out at trial, so I'll put it on the record, Mr. Hovind repeatedly said that there was a grand jury that refused to indict him. That is not true. There's never been a grand jury that refused to indict Mr. Hovind. He was indicted the first time the indictment was presented to the grand jury.

[Paths of the Sea]

Robert,

Secondly, one other matter I found significant in the sentencing hearing was Ms.Heldmyer's comment concerning Kent's oft-repeated claim that there had been three grand juries set up to examine his tax issues. She said:

The only fact that I recall Mr. Hovind saying that may not have come out at trial, so I'll put it on the record, Mr. Hovind repeatedly said that there was a grand jury that refused to indict him. That is not true. There's never been a grand jury that refused to indict Mr. Hovind. He was indicted the first time the indictment was presented to the grand jury.

Yeah, I noticed that as well and wasn't sure how to best deal with it.

It seems to be a big deal with Ernie Land in that he keeps bragging about how he was called to testify at all those grand juries that "refused to indict" Kent on the personal income tax issues.

I'd like to get to the bottom of that, but I don't know how that might be done.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

Robert,

Secondly, one other matter I found significant in the sentencing hearing was Ms.Heldmyer's comment concerning Kent's oft-repeated claim that there had been three grand juries set up to examine his tax issues. She said:

The only fact that I recall Mr. Hovind saying that may not have come out at trial, so I'll put it on the record, Mr. Hovind repeatedly said that there was a grand jury that refused to indict him. That is not true. There's never been a grand jury that refused to indict Mr. Hovind. He was indicted the first time the indictment was presented to the grand jury.

Yeah, I noticed that as well and wasn't sure how to best deal with it.

It seems to be a big deal with Ernie Land in that he keeps bragging about how he was called to testify at all those grand juries that "refused to indict" Kent on the personal income tax issues (as if it were his testimony that kept Kent from being indicted).

I'd like to get to the bottom of that, but I don't know how that might be done.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Gregg]

Just out of idle curiosity, does Peter J. Reilly post here?

[Paths of the Sea]

Just out of idle curiosity, does Peter J. Reilly post here?

I've known him to visit, but I don't think he has time to get involved here.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Hyrion]

I'd like to get to the bottom of that, but I don't know how that might be done.

Not possible.

The best you could do is point to the absence of any record showing a Grand Jury date/time/sitting in which the recorded minutes indicate they declined to indict Hovind.

You could perform that search in every location where Grand Juries sit and point to the same absence of record.

But... the kick in the seat of the pants is that if it did happen, it would be very simple for Hovind to identify the date/time/location of the Grand Jury that refused to indict him.

I'd suggest if he refuses to divulge those details - it's because it did not happen.

He says it did happen,

Ms. Heldmyer says it didn't,

the ball is now in Hovinds court to prove Ms. Heldmyer wrong by divulging the details of the grand jury that refused to indict him..... seriously, in his court..... Denny's.

[Samphire]

From Hansen's latest motion shown on Robert's Facebook page:

The Defendant is willing to be subject to electronic monitoring and has an available house where he will be able to live in Pensacola, Florida for the pendency of this case.

Presumably, nowhere near Cummings Road or Oleander Street.

[Paths of the Sea]

Reilly's interview with Ernie Land just posted:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Xv8lxMDwBI

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[darling]

Just out of idle curiosity, does Peter J. Reilly post here?

I doubt it. Or, if he does, he doesn't pay too much attention. In his interview with Kent he seems surprised at Kent's claims that three tax professionals wrote letters blessing his position. They were posted here a few pages ago and, of course, do not say what Kent wants them to say. (After "Dear Kent" that is...)

[Paths of the Sea]

In his interview with Kent he seems surprised at Kent's claims that three tax professionals wrote letters blessing his position. They were posted here a few pages ago and, of course, do not say what Kent wants them to say. (After "Dear Kent" that is...)

I've been looking for more than I've got on that, but I haven't gotten around to looking at the archives here.

I will try to take a look and maybe forward more of those details to Peter if I get the chance.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[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 - 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."

I found one of the references.

Thanks; worth noting again!

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

I have copies of opinion letters prepared for Kent...

Darlng,

Could you post or send a link or something so that I could again have copies of those letters.

I could not find them via that link you posted earlier to some filesharing website that I could not access. Somehow I managed to find the file before, but I can't find it in my machine now and I can't find them again via that filesharing website.

It would be greatly appreciated.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Dr. Caligari]

But... the kick in the seat of the pants is that if it did happen, it would be very simple for Hovind to identify the date/time/location of the Grand Jury that refused to indict him.

It is quite possible that multiple grand juries were involved in Hovind's case. Grand juries sit for only 18 months. In a long-running white-collar investigation, the Government will often serve subpoenas on behalf of different grand juries, but those grand juries will not actually "consider" the case; only when the investigation is complete will the Government present all of its evidence to a grand jury which will then deliberate and return an indictment. So it is possible that subpoenas seeking evidence about Hovind were served with the caption saying, say, "February 1998 Grand Jury," "September 1999 Grand Jury" and "March 2000 Grand Jury," but that wouldn't mean that the first two grand juries declined to indict Hovind, only that they were never asked to.

[notorial dissent]

Or, the simpler course, that he is yet again lying.