The one and only Kent Hovind and related thread

[grixit]

Hey, i'm up to 3 hand grenades and a hornets' nest and i haven't dropped any of them yet.

[obadiah]

Hey, i'm up to 3 hand grenades and a hornets' nest and i haven't dropped any of them yet.

If you add in the chainsaw, I WILL be impressed.

[fortinbras]

An article about Kent Hovind's antisemitism (which includes endorsing the Protocols of Zion):

http://www.splcenter.org/get-informed/i ... l-religion

[grixit]

Seriously? That seems out of character. Unless he also believes the "Khazar Replacement" theory.

[notorial dissent]

I don't think Hovind has ever met a conspiracy theory he didn't like if he could bend it to his purposes.

[Samphire]

To be fair to Kent, of the moon landings he does say that they "probably" happened.

[jcolvin2]

Paul Hansen doubles down on crazy.

Below is a list of handwritten motions (some - or possible all - of which his court appointed lawyer refused to file) filed by Hansen in the Hansen/Hovind case. The motions are somewhat repetitive and the legal theories therein are difficult to follow, but raise (1) Hansen did not consent to US jurisdiction (or if he did is somehow revoking that consent); (2) the US has no jurisdiction over most of what is commonly referred to as the United States of America; (3) the US has not provided evidence of jurisdiction; and (4) Hansen wants his SSN account funds paid to him.

From the court docket:

02/20/2015 91 MOTION #1 - Judicial Notice: Art. 1, Sec 8(17) U.S. Const./4th Amendment U.S. Const. by PAUL JOHN HANSEN pro se (with permission from Court at the Pretrial Conference). (sps) (Entered: 02/23/2015)

02/20/2015 92 MOTION for Personal Jurisdiction Challenge #2 by PAUL JOHN HANSEN pro se (with permission from Court at the Pretrial Conference). (sps) (Entered: 02/23/2015)

02/20/2015 93 MOTION for Subject Matter Jurisdictional Challenge #3 with Motion to Dismiss by PAUL JOHN HANSEN pro se (with permission from Court at the Pretrial Conference). (sps) (Entered: 02/23/2015)

02/20/2015 94 MOTION Request for Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law by PAUL JOHN HANSEN pro se (filed with permission from Court at the Pretrial Conference). (sps) (Entered: 02/23/2015)

02/20/2015 95 MOTION Request for Verifiable Statements in the Form of Affirmative Defenses
by PAUL JOHN HANSEN pro se (filed with permission from Court at the Pretrial Conference). (sps) (Entered: 02/23/2015)

02/20/2015 96 MOTION Request for Territorial Jurisdiction Challenge #4 by PAUL JOHN HANSEN pro se (filed with permission from Court at the Pretrial Conference). (sps) (Entered: 02/23/2015)

02/20/2015 97 MOTION Request re: File for Record Notice by PAUL JOHN HANSEN pro se (filed with permission from Court at the Pretrial Conference). (sps) (Entered: 02/23/2015)

[Famspear]

Paul Hansen doubles down on crazy.

Below is a list of handwritten motions (some - or possible all - of which his court appointed lawyer refused to file) filed by Hansen in the Hansen/Hovind case. The motions are somewhat repetitive and the legal theories therein are difficult to follow [ . . .] Hansen wants his SSN account funds paid to him.

In the midst of so much Hansenian gibberish, it is perhaps pointless for me to point this out, but at any rate poor Mr. Hansen does not, strictly speaking, have any funds in a "SSN [Social Security number] account" in the sense in which he might be thinking.

It is true that Internal Revenue Code section 6109 provides that an individual's "identifying number" for federal tax purposes is normally the "social security account number issued to an individual for purposes of section 205(c)(2)(A) of the Social Security Act...."

However, in terms of regular Social Security benefits under the Social Security Act, a person does not have an "account" in the precisely same way that a person has an "account" for purposes of, say, an individual retirement account (IRA) or a 401(k) plan.

The Social Security system, in its regular retirement benefit arrangement, is more analogous to what would be called a "defined benefit plan". Instead of each participant having an "account" with an "amount" in that account, the terms of the plan define the benefit that the participant should receive, based on various factors.

By contrast, a "defined contribution plan" is a category of plans where the participant actually does have an "account" with an "amount" in that account.

Sorry, Paul. This isn't the only place in American law where terminology can be confusing or misleading. We feel your pain......

[jcolvin2]

Paul Hansen doubles down on crazy.

Below is a list of handwritten motions (some - or possible all - of which his court appointed lawyer refused to file) filed by Hansen in the Hansen/Hovind case. The motions are somewhat repetitive and the legal theories therein are difficult to follow, but raise (1) Hansen did not consent to US jurisdiction (or if he did is somehow revoking that consent); (2) the US has no jurisdiction over most of what is commonly referred to as the United States of America; (3) the US has not provided evidence of jurisdiction; and (4) Hansen wants his SSN account funds paid to him.

From the court docket:

02/20/2015 91 MOTION #1 - Judicial Notice: Art. 1, Sec 8(17) U.S. Const./4th Amendment U.S. Const. by PAUL JOHN HANSEN pro se (with permission from Court at the Pretrial Conference). (sps) (Entered: 02/23/2015)

02/20/2015 92 MOTION for Personal Jurisdiction Challenge #2 by PAUL JOHN HANSEN pro se (with permission from Court at the Pretrial Conference). (sps) (Entered: 02/23/2015)

02/20/2015 93 MOTION for Subject Matter Jurisdictional Challenge #3 with Motion to Dismiss by PAUL JOHN HANSEN pro se (with permission from Court at the Pretrial Conference). (sps) (Entered: 02/23/2015)

02/20/2015 94 MOTION Request for Findings of Facts and Conclusions of Law by PAUL JOHN HANSEN pro se (filed with permission from Court at the Pretrial Conference). (sps) (Entered: 02/23/2015)

02/20/2015 95 MOTION Request for Verifiable Statements in the Form of Affirmative Defenses
by PAUL JOHN HANSEN pro se (filed with permission from Court at the Pretrial Conference). (sps) (Entered: 02/23/2015)

02/20/2015 96 MOTION Request for Territorial Jurisdiction Challenge #4 by PAUL JOHN HANSEN pro se (filed with permission from Court at the Pretrial Conference). (sps) (Entered: 02/23/2015)

02/20/2015 97 MOTION Request re: File for Record Notice by PAUL JOHN HANSEN pro se (filed with permission from Court at the Pretrial Conference). (sps) (Entered: 02/23/2015)

Today, the court issued its ruling on Hansen's motions without waiting for a response from the government:

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA
v. CASE NO. 3:14cr91/MCR
PAUL JOHN HANSEN
/
O R D E R

This matter is before the Court on the various pro se filings of Defendant Paul John
Hansen entitled: Judicial Notice: Article 1, Section 8(17) U.S. Constitution / 4th
Amendment U.S. Constitution (doc. 91); Personal Jurisdiction Challenge (doc. 92); Subject
Matter Jurisdictional Challenge With Motion to Dismiss (doc. 93); Request for Findings of
Facts and Conclusions of Law (doc. 94); Verifiable Statement in the Form of Affirmative
Defenses (doc. 95); Territorial Jurisdictional Challenge (doc. 96); Notice - Wish for
Independence; Verifiable Proof of Service (doc. 98), all filed with special permission
following the Hearing and Pretrial Conference conducted February 20, 2015. The Court
has reviewed Defendant Hansen’s filings and does not require any response from the
Government.

In his various pro se filings, Hansen “challenges” the jurisdiction of this Court.
Hansen challenges the validity of the arrest warrant and seeks to “arrest the warrant” or
“declare the arrest lacking jurisdiction”. (See doc. 91). Hansen demands proof of personal
jurisdiction, suggesting he has not consented to jurisdiction, and therefore moves that the
charges against him be dismissed. (See doc. 92). Hansen also demands evidence of
subject matter jurisdiction, suggesting this Court has not advised Defendant of the “nature
and cause” of the accusations against him, and arguing that the Court is without jurisdiction
to proceed and thus the charges against him must be dismissed. (See doc. 93). Hansen
offers no legal authority for his position.

According to the Indictment dated October 21, 2014 (doc. 3), the Government has
charged Hansen, with one count of conspiracy to commit mail fraud, two counts of mail
fraud, and two counts of criminal contempt. An arrest warrant issued pursuant to the
Indictment, whereupon Hansen was arrested in Omaha, Nebraska, then transferred to this
district to appear before this Court on the charges in the Indictment.1 (See doc. 22).
Hansen appeared for arraignment on December 11, 2014, and was advised at that time
of the charges against him. (See doc. 50). Upon consideration, the Court finds Hansen’s
“challenges” without merit.

Accordingly, Defendant Hansen’s various pro se filings (docs. 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96,
97) are DENIED.

DONE and ORDERED this 25th day of February, 2015.
s/ M. Casey Rodgers
M. CASEY RODGERS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

1 A Superseding Indictment was issued on November 18, 2014, with no substantial changes to the charges contained in the original Indictment. (See doc. 28).

[Hyrion]

Sorry, Paul. This isn't the only place in American law where terminology can be confusing or misleading.

That's true of any language and I'd expect any teen to be fully aware of that factor. I'd also expect them to be fully aware that context is very important in helping to determine which definition to apply.

For example, in the english language:

• bark vs bark

The BARK of the cinnamon tree makes for a nice spice.

The BARK of the dog can be very irritating.

Neither bark is the same as the other at all.

Heck, they're so different one exists in physical form that you can handle while the other exists as a sound that'll you never be able to lift no matter how large a forklift you use.

But.... one thing we know about the OPCA crowd - they sure love to not only take words out of context, but also create their own definitions thereof and use them in ways that no one teaches.

[Pottapaug1938]

Thanks to our friends at Planet Merrill, we have the following:

Kingdom of Heaven, Property Registration


13

Jan



[ The Depository of records location for this property is under construction. this page is to be considered valid notice of the jurisdictional status of the subject property (land) as found below. ]

-Kingdom of Heaven Property Record – NOTICE OF – Privately Held Deed. and www.embassyofheaven.org < soon to be upgraded for these records.

((State of Nebraska, Douglas County Property Records, Nebraska R0212790000)) <any thing recorded on these pages in double brackets (( )) is a reference number, or word, used in the prior registration of another jurisdiction other than the Kingdom of Heaven.

Information is valid as of 2014-1-13

Owner- Paul John Hansen, single

Owners Claimed Jurisdiction: Kingdom of Heaven, Christendom States United of America (See- STATE)

Notice- Conveyance notice of this Privately Held Deed is found in the State of Nebraska, Douglas County Property Records, Nebraska R0212790000

Name and Mailing Location of Prior Owner:

BROWN WADE – 8504 CEDAR ISLAND RD, BELLEVUE NE 68147-0000

Name and Mailing Location of Current Owner:

Paul John Hansen, not a United States Citizen, 1548 N 19, Omaha, Nebraska 68110, not a resident address, being without the United States.

Property Information:

Key Number: ((1279 0000 02))

Account Type: Private ((Commercial))

Parcel Number: ((0212790000))

Legal Description:

((LANDS SEC-TWN-RGE 10-15-13 LT 6 BLK 43 KOUNTZE PL ALL SL 1 TL 60 & N 3 FT 2 INCHES S L 2 TL 60))

The subject land is legally described as: One Undivided one half of one half interest of Sublot one (1) Tax Lot (60), and the north three (3) feet and two (2) inches of Sublot two (2) Tax Lot (60), in Section ten (10) Township fifteen (15), North Range Thirteen (13) East of the Sixth P.M., Nebraska, and Lot six (6) Block forty-three (43) Kountze Place Subdivision. Located without the United States, as not a possession or territory of the United States, not owned by The United States of America, not of a county of the State of Nebraska.

NOTICE- Though the past legal descriptions have used terms like State of Nebraska, Nebraska, City of Omaha, Omaha, and Douglas County, no ownership relationship now exists between these named entities and the subject property, they are territorially, and jurisdictionally distinct, the land is not of the United States.

Sales Information:

Prior Sales Date: 12-11-2013 View Document at- http://douglascone.wgxtreme.com/?d=1

Deed Type: Quit Claim Deed.

Book: Prior sales – ((2009))

Page: ((110281))

Grantor: –Prior Sales–

Inner City Resource Development

-sold to-

Brown Wade

-sold to-

Paul John Hansen on 12-11-2013

-conveyed to-

Kingdom of Heaven Jurisdiction by Privately Held Deed on 1-??-2014 See> Privately Held Deed, subject land not associated with any county of the State of Nebraska.

Land Information:

Acres- 0.28

SF- 12524.0

Units- 1.0

Depth- 0.0

Width- 0.0

Improvement Information

Building 1

Building Square Footage- 6150.0

Rooms: 0.0

Exterior:

Units: 1.0

Interior:

Baths: 0

Roof Cover: Rubber Seal

Roof Type: Flat

Stories: 1.0 Floor

Year Built 1940

Paved Asphalt Parking

http://freeinhabitant.info/tax-prope...governance.htm

[Dr. Caligari]

There is an extensive thread on Hovind and his trial at the Fogbow forum, for anyone interested in more detail than we're getting here:

http://thefogbow.com/forum/topic/7160-kent-hovind/

[darling]

There is an extensive thread on Hovind and his trial at the Fogbow forum, for anyone interested in more detail than we're getting here:

\

Thank you! I confess to disappointment that this thread has tapered off so much.

[NYGman]

Not sure if this was ever posted, but looks as if Kent finally put up his Tax opinion letters online: http://freekenthovind.com/2015/02/14/pr ... risonment/

Of course the first is from Curtis & Curtis or Nebraska, the next from Fred Ortiz of Hawaii, and the last John J Schlabach EA of Washington State. I believe all have been discussed here, and all been discredited as tax protesters. Also interesting how a guy in Florida would go very far out of his way to get tax opinions from experts. You would think that there would be local experts in either Tallahassee, Miami or Tampa, maybe Atlanta. If I was to go out of my way, New York, or Washington DC may have been more appropriate place to find an expert, but to go so far out of your way to get an opinion you like, it just looks like opinion shopping to me. If you have to go that far and wide to get someone to agree with you, perhaps, and I may be taking a leap here, it isn't a widely viewed or even a valid position?

[Cobalt Shiva]

Render unto Ceasar, Kent me boy...

[notorial dissent]

The only party Kent ever had any intention of rendering unto was himself.

[Gregg]

Not sure if this was ever posted, but looks as if Kent finally put up his Tax opinion letters online: http://freekenthovind.com/2015/02/14/pr ... risonment/

Of course the first is from Curtis & Curtis or Nebraska, the next from Fred Ortiz of Hawaii, and the last John J Schlabach EA of Washington State. I believe all have been discussed here, and all been discredited as tax protesters. Also interesting how a guy in Florida would go very far out of his way to get tax opinions from experts. You would think that there would be local experts in either Tallahassee, Miami or Tampa, maybe Atlanta. If I was to go out of my way, New York, or Washington DC may have been more appropriate place to find an expert, but to go so far out of your way to get an opinion you like, it just looks like opinion shopping to me. If you have to go that far and wide to get someone to agree with you, perhaps, and I may be taking a leap here, it isn't a widely viewed or even a valid position?

He could have gotten a closer and more accurate expert by hanging around in a freshmen accounting class at Florida State University.

[grixit]

Not sure if this was ever posted, but looks as if Kent finally put up his Tax opinion letters online: http://freekenthovind.com/2015/02/14/pr ... risonment/

Of course the first is from Curtis & Curtis or Nebraska, the next from Fred Ortiz of Hawaii, and the last John J Schlabach EA of Washington State. I believe all have been discussed here, and all been discredited as tax protesters. Also interesting how a guy in Florida would go very far out of his way to get tax opinions from experts. You would think that there would be local experts in either Tallahassee, Miami or Tampa, maybe Atlanta. If I was to go out of my way, New York, or Washington DC may have been more appropriate place to find an expert, but to go so far out of your way to get an opinion you like, it just looks like opinion shopping to me. If you have to go that far and wide to get someone to agree with you, perhaps, and I may be taking a leap here, it isn't a widely viewed or even a valid position?

It's March. Drive by a few empty business spaces near you and at least one will turn into an H&R office.

[notorial dissent]

He could have gotten a closer and more accurate expert by hanging around in a freshmen accounting class at Florida State University.

But they wouldn't have given him the answers he wanted, he shopped hard to get those opinions.

[wserra]

My comment on that site:

wserra says:
Your comment is awaiting moderation.
March 4, 2015 at 1:06 pm

Imperial, Nebraska? Kailua-Kona, Hawaii? Spokane, Washington? Certainly seems as though a guy from Pensacola had to search far and wide to find and buy the opinions he wanted.

I'll bet it's "awaiting moderation".