The one and only Kent Hovind and related thread

[LaVidaRoja]

WHAT??? There is no Pelucidar??!!

[webhick]

I am an educated man, but I still can't figure out why they call me sheep.

I can.

[noblepa]

• The people aren't gonna take it anymore, we have a million people backing us

Even if their claim of a million supporters is accurate, and I don't believe its a tenth of that, that's what, one third of one percent of the US population?

But hey, in a birther democracy, that's more than enough.

[Gregg]

I am an educated man, but I still can't figure out why they call me sheep.

I can.

I told you, I took 2 ambien that night and have no memory of the alleged events you claim happened.

[wserra]

And who are you going to believe, him or your lyin' eyes?

[mirele]

Well that was fast.

The government asked for a retrial on the hung counts. It's been scheduled for the week of May 18.

Filed March 20, 2015

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

O R D E R

Following a jury trial March 2-12, 2015, and the jury’s inability to reach a unanimous decision on all charges, a mistrial was declared as to Defendant Hovind on Counts One, Two, and Four of the Superseding Indictment (see doc. 150), and as to Defendant Hansen on Counts One and Four of the Superseding Indictment (see doc. 152).

The Government has notified the Court of its intent to proceed to trial on the unresolved counts. (See doc. 153).

Accordingly, the trial of this matter is hereby scheduled to proceed Monday, May 18, 2015, at Pensacola, Florida, with an attorney conference scheduled for 8:00 A.M., and jury selection to commence immediately thereafter.

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

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

[notorial dissent]

Not good news for Hovind et al.

[mirele]

We're still on track for a May 18 trial date, despite the continued rumblings out of the Hovindicator camp that Paul Hansen has something up his sleeve. Here's a quick rundown of the last several weeks:

* Kent's attorney filed a motion to set aside the verdict and the government filed its response. So far, nothing has come out of that.
* Paul Hansen is now representing himself, with Christopher Klotz as backup counsel. Judge Rodgers has made it clear that this is NOT a hybrid defense.
* The usual motions in limine, voir dire questions, jury instructions, etc. have been or are in the process of being filed.
* Paul Hansen claimed last week he was going to file a "subpoena duces tecum" (oh, he was very clear about that) demanding all sorts of crazy sovcit nonsense from IRS agent Scott Schneider. Because I don't have better things to do with my life, I transcribed the first video and its 18 demands (a later video came out with 23 demands). You'll note that most of it is sovcit crazy. I'd direct your attention to number 17, which is essentially an attempt to retry the 2006 case.

Paul: I have in front of me a document subpoena duces tecum that I'm delivering to Chris Klotz, my 6th Amendment counsel in the case U.S. V. Paul Hansen and Kent Hovind. The subpoena I'm putting together here is to Scott Schneider, IRS criminal agent that prosecuted Kent in 2006 and prosecuted him again in 2015. 0038 Duces tecum simply means bringing the documents to court. I'm going to read them off and it's self-explanatory. Basically it's a notice for Scott to bring documents with him when he appears in court and it also gives him time to get the documents together and prepare to answer questions which might be associated with the documents.

Number One: Documentation that evidences that Hovind or Hansen did the charged claimed acts on land owned by the USA, as the USA is titled in the Articles of Confederation. 0121

Number Two: Documentation that evidences that Hovind or Hansen did any mailings, emails, calls or filings where the land is owned by the USA

Number Three: Documentation that evidences that Hovind or Hansen's mailings, emails, calls or filings passed over land owned by the USA

Number Four: Documentation that evidences that Hovind or Hansen mailings, phone calls, e-mails were effected upon land owned by the USA

Number Five: Documentation that evidences that the courthouse building the cases?/places? where Hovind was tried in 2006 and 2015 and the case to be tried in May 2015 is owned by the USA.

Number Six: Documentation that evidences the attorney, Eggers, representing the USA, has a state of Florida attorney license that operates on land owned by the USA

Number Seven: Documentation that evidences Creation Science Evangelism workers operated on land owned by the USA in (repeats from the start) 1995 to 2006.

Number Eight: Documentation that evidences the bank that Hovind was indicted in 2006 as with structuring was operating on land owned by the USA

Number Nine: Documentation that evidences Kent Hovind was authorized to withhold taxes for the United States as prosecuted in 2006 0342.

Number Ten: Documentation that evidences Kent Hovind or Hansen was a resident or resided on land owned by the USA at any time from 1995 to 2015.

Number Eleven: Documentation that evidences when and how the plaintiff was created. The plaintiff in this case is the USA, all capital letters.

Number Twelve: Documentation that evidences what plaintiff relied upon to create to prove the court's personal jurisdiction over the man called Paul John Hansen and the man called Kent Hovind.

Number Thirteen: Documentation that evidences the man Paul John Hansen and the man called Kent Hovind is a person named in the charged written laws of this case.

Number Fourteen: Documentation that evidences the definition of the term "person" used in the charged written law of this case.

Number Fifteen: Documentation that evidences the charged written law of this case has force and effect of law on land that is not owned by the USA.

Number Sixteen: Documentation that evidences the IRS agent/agents have written authority to operate outside of the fifty United States.

Number Seventeen: Documentation that evidences that you, Scott Schneider, knew any of the following at any time from 1995 to 2015: (1) Kent did not have workers, Creation Science Evangelism workers, working on land of the USA [(2)] Kent had no duty to withhold any tax from any worker associated with Creation Science Evangelism the ministry. (3) Kent had no banking activity 0600, structuring actions associated with any illegal or criminal activity. (4) That all or some of the United States written laws as charged from 2006 to 2015 do not apply to Kent Hovind or where Kent Hovind operated. (5) What written law does the USA rely upon that gave authority to Judge Rodgers to administratively take property belonging to Creation Science Evangelism Trust and land and property not on land owned by the USA.

Number Eighteen (the last one): Documentation of the written law the United States relied upon that was the process Hansen or Hovind would have needed to follow to become a United States citizen.

* I am taking two weeks off from my sane job investigating computer system failures and going to Pensacola to witness the trial shenanigans. (I do have all faith in Judge Rodgers to keep a lid on the inevitable sovcit crazy.) I have a press pass so I will be able to take notes in the courtroom. The Hovindicators are trying to round up followers to show up in Pensacola for the trial too. This is either the fourth or fifth time I've been to Florida. This time I'm getting to the beach, no matter what. (The previous times I was protesting a certain space-alien outfit resident in Clearwater and just never got over to the beach.)

[ArthurWankspittle]

The only thing to do in Pensacola is visit the Navy Air Museum.

[grixit]

* I am taking two weeks off from my sane job investigating computer system failures and going to Pensacola to witness the trial shenanigans. (I do have all faith in Judge Rodgers to keep a lid on the inevitable sovcit crazy.) I have a press pass so I will be able to take notes in the courtroom. The Hovindicators are trying to round up followers to show up in Pensacola for the trial too. This is either the fourth or fifth time I've been to Florida. This time I'm getting to the beach, no matter what. (The previous times I was protesting a certain space-alien outfit resident in Clearwater and just never got over to the beach.)

Heh. I sometimes like to refer to computer troubleshooting as "scraping off the body thetans".

[Famspear]

The trial set to begin Monday has been cancelled. In an unusual action on a Saturday, the government has filed this:

GOVERNMENT’S MOTION TO DISMISS COUNTS ONE, TWO AND FOUR OF THE SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT WITHOUT PREJUDICE

COMES NOW the United States of America, by and through the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney, and files this Motion to Dismiss Counts One, Two, and Four of the Superseding Indictment Without Prejudice pursuant to Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, Rule 48(a).

1. On May 11 and May 12, 2015, the government received the defendants' motions to dismiss. (Docs. 180 and 184).

2. The defendants' motions to dismiss were filed beyond the deadlines previously set by the Court for the filing of such motions.

3. The defendants' motions raise issues regarding the technical sufficiency of the Superseding Indictment, including the adequacy of notice. (Docs. 180 and 184).

4. Due to the issues raised by the defendants, and the timing of their motions, the government respectfully moves to dismiss Counts One, Two, and Four of the Superseding Indictment without prejudice, pursuant to Rule 48(a) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. The government submits that the relief sought is in the interest of justice. As the government's motion is made prior to trial, the defendants’ consent is not required. Rule 48(a) provides,

The government, may with leave of court, dismiss an indictment, information, or complaint. The government may not dismiss the prosecution during trial without the defendant’s consent.

The “leave of court” requirement has been interpreted to support the government providing the Court with the reason for its request. United States v. Dyal, 868 F. 2d 424 (11th Cir. 1989); United States v. Salinas, 693 F.2d 348 (5th Cir. 1982); United States v. Cowan, 524 F.2d 504 (5th Cir. 1975). In Cowan, the Fifth Circuit noted that,

The Executive remains the absolute judge of whether a prosecution should be initiated and the first and presumptively the best judge of whether a pending prosecution should be terminated. The exercise of its discretion with respect to the termination of pending prosecutions should not be judicially disturbed unless clearly contrary to manifest public interest.

Cowan, 524 F.2d at 513. There is a presumption that the government acts in good faith. United States v. Collins, 300 Fed. Appx. 663, 666 (11th Cir. 2008), citing Salinas, 693 F.2d at 352.

5. Therefore, the government moves to Dismiss Counts One, Two, and Four of the Superseding Indictment without prejudice, in the interest of justice, and in order to ensure that the defendants are adequately apprised, with reasonable certainty, of the nature of the accusation.

WHEREFORE, the undersigned Assistant United States Attorney files this Motion to Dismiss Counts One, Two, and Four of the Superseding Indictment Without Prejudice.

Respectfully submitted,AMELA C. MARSH
United States Attorney
/s/ Tiffany H. Eggers
TIFFANY H. EGGERS
Assistant United States Attorney

[ . . .]

--See docket entry 194, May 16, 2015, United States v. Kent E. Hovind, case no. 3:14-cr-00091-MCR, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola Div.).

The Court has responded:

ORDER

Pending before the Court is the Government’s Motion to Dismiss Counts One, Two and Four of the Superseding Indictment Without Prejudice (doc. 194). The Defendants will be permitted to respond at 8:00 a.m. on Monday, May 18, 2015, at the scheduled attorney conference. In light of this motion, the jury selection scheduled to begin thereafter and the trial are hereby cancelled.

DONE and ORDERED this 16th day of May, 2015.
M. Casey Rodgers
M. CASEY RODGERS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

--See docket entry 195, May 16, 2015, United States v. Kent E. Hovind, case no. 3:14-cr-00091-MCR, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola Div.).

[Famspear]

This is the filing by Hovind's attorney, on Monday, May 11, that prompted the government's request:

DEFENDANT HOVIND’S MOTION TO DISMISS SUPERSEDING INDICTMENT (COUNTS ONE, TWO, AND FOUR) FOR FAILURE TO STATE AN OFFENSE

COMES NOW the defendant, KENT E. HOVIND, by and through his undersigned attorney, and, pursuant to Fed.R.Crim.P 12 (b)(3)(B)(v), moves to dismiss Counts One, Two and Four of the Superseding Indictment for failure to state an offense. In support of this motion, the defendant states:

1. A copy of the Superseding Indictment is appended (doc. 28). Count One charges the defendant and codefendant Hansen with conspiring to commit the offense of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1349. Count Two charges the defendant (alone now since Hansen was acquitted of this count at the first trial) with a substantive count of mail fraud in violation of 18 U.S.C. §1341. Count Four charges the defendant and Hansen with a separate substantive count of mail fraud.

2. Fed.R.Crim.P 12(b)(3)(B)(v) authorizes a pretrial motion to dismiss an indictment for failure to state an offense. Fed.R.Crim.P 7(c)(1) states that “[t]he indictment . . . must be a plain, concise, and definite written statement of the essential facts constituting the offense charged.” In U.S. v. Sharpe, 438 F.3d 1257, 1263 (11th Cir. 2006), the court discussed the standard for evaluating the sufficiency of an indictment:

By now it has become well-established that “[t]he sufficiency of a criminal indictment is determined from its face.” United States v. Salman, 378 F.3d 1266, 1268 (11th Cir. 1992)). “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) (internal quotation marks omitted). “An indictment not framed to apprise the defendant with reasonable certainty, of the nature of the accusation against him is defective, although it may follow the language of the statute.” Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). “Furthermore, if 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. (internal quotation marks omitted).

In a mail fraud case it is not sufficient to merely use statutory language to make the allegation that a defendant violated the mail fraud statute or conspired to do so, e.g., by merely stating that the defendant “having devised or intending to devise any scheme or artifice to defraud, or for obtaining money or property by means of false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises” engaged in some type of conduct. 18 U.S.C. §1341. “[W]here an indictment alleges a scheme to defraud under the bank, mail or wire fraud statutes, it must specify facts not merely in the general words of the statute, but with such reasonable particularity . . . as will . . . apprise [the defendant], with reasonable certainty, of the nature of the accusation. . . and as will enable the court to say that the facts stated are sufficient in law to support a conviction.” U.S. v. Steffen, 678 F.3d 1104, 1113 (8th Cir. 2012) (citation and inner quotation marks omitted). In other words the indictment must alleged facts or conduct which, if true, would constitute a violation of the mail fraud statute.

3. In the instant case the defendant contends that the indictment fails to allege facts or conduct that, if true, would constitute a violation of the mail fraud statute or the statute prohibiting conspiring or attempting to violate the mail fraud statute. The indictment alleges events and conduct in the 18 paragraphs under the Introduction and the 3 paragraphs under Manner and Means in Count One. Paragraphs 1 - 6 under Introduction and paragraphs 1 and 2 under Manner and Means explain the background of the government obtaining title to the nine properties at issue and then attempting to sell them. Paragraphs 8 - 18 under Introduction and paragraph 3 under Manner and Means allege certain conduct by Hansen and Hovind subsequent to when the government obtained title to the properties. The first obvious problem with the allegations in these later paragraphs is the total failure of them to explain any relationship between Hansen and Hovind and their alleged conduct that would show concerted or conspiratorial conduct. There are allegations that Hansen did something and Hovind did something, but nothing regarding Hovind’s knowledge of Hansen’s conduct or vice versa. Another obvious problem is the lack of any allegation that the liens filed by Hansen in 2011 [ . . . ] were intentionally false or fraudulent, i.e., contained information of a material nature known to be untrue, or that his Quiet Title lawsuit included or contained any false or fraudulent representations. [footnote 1 not reproduced] [ . . . ] The same is true as to the Claim of Lien Affidavit of Obligation (with attachments) attempted to be filed in court by G.S. in April 2013 [ . . . ] and thereafter mailed by Hansen to the closing attorney [ . . . ] There is no allegation that this document was false or fraudulent (no allegation that Hansen or G.S. knew or believed it contained false information). The only allegation of conduct by Hovind is his filing of the Bivens lawsuit in South Carolina [ . . . ] and his subsequent filing of the four lis pendens after mailing a copy of them to the agent [ . . . ]There is absolutely no allegation that Hovind’s alleged conduct involved “false or fraudulent pretenses, representations, or promises.” There is no allegation that he filed the Bivens lawsuit and lis pendens in bad faith. Clearly, just looking at what his alleged regarding Hovind’s conduct, it is totally inadequate to allege a violation of the mail fraud statute which “requires proof of a material misrepresentation, or the omission or concealment of a material fact calculated to deceive another out of money or property.” U.S. v. Maxwell, 579 F.3d 1282, 1299 (11th Cir. 2009). See also U.S. v. Bradley, 644 F.3d 1213, 1238-40 (11th Cir. 2011) (discussing elements of mail and wire fraud statutes and meaning of “scheme to defraud”.) The other allegations do not compensate for this total inadequacy.

4. The problem with the indictment in this case — the reason that it fails to adequately state an offense — is that although it alleges conduct by Hansen and Hovind, it does not adequately explain how the alleged conduct would constitute a violation of the mail fraud and mail fraud conspiracy statutes. It is not sufficient just to allege that certain alleged conduct or facts violated those statutes (by a conclusory statement that it did) — it must be shown that the alleged conduct or facts, if true, would be “sufficient in law to support a conviction.” U.S. v. Steffen, supra at 1113. The indictment in this case fails to do that. It may be sufficient to allege a violation of a court order as alleged in counts not at issue here, but a violation of a court order does not equate to a violation of the mail fraud statute.

WHEREFORE, the defendant moves to dismiss Counts One, Two and Four of the Superseding Indictment.

RESPECTFULLY SUBMITTED this 11th day of May 2015.
/s/ Thomas S. Keith
THOMAS S. KEITH
[ . . .]
Attorney for Defendant

--See docket entry 180, May 11, 2015, United States v. Kent E. Hovind, case no. 3:14-cr-00091-MCR, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola Div.) (some underscoring and italic fonts not reproduced).

[grixit]

I'm guessing that the government will refile in a few weeks, having asked for their dismissal to be without prejudice. I'm further guessing this is to prevent any quibbling over notice and time to respond.

[Famspear]

Two big developments today, Monday, May 18.

First, the Court has indeed granted the government's request for a dismissal -- without prejudice -- of the indictment on the three remaining charges against Hovind. That is at docket entry 198.

At entry 197, the Court has granted a judgment of acquittal on the criminal contempt charge -- the charge on which the jury found Hovind guilty a few weeks ago:

This case involves the criminal prosecution of Defendants Kent E. Hovind and Paul John Hansen on charges of mail fraud, conspiracy to commit mail fraud, and criminal contempt. A jury trial was held in March 2015. At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Hovind guilty of one count of contempt in relation to a previous Order of the Court forfeiting his interest in certain real property, Doc. 212, United States v. Hovind, No. 3:06-cr-83/MCR (N.D. Fla. June 28, 2007) (“Forfeiture Order”).[footnote 1 not reproduced] The jury was unable to reach a unanimous agreement on the remaining charges against Hovind, and, accordingly, a mistrial was declared as to those counts. See Doc. 150. At the close of the Government’s case-in-chief, Hovind orally moved for a Judgment of Acquittal under Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, arguing among other things that there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction for criminal contempt of the Forfeiture Order. The Court took the motion under advisement and requested briefing from the parties. Having fully and carefully considered the matter, the Court finds the motion is due to be granted.

This case is related to a prior criminal prosecution of Hovind and his wife, in which they were charged in a fifty-eight count indictment with tax crimes, structuring crimes, and obstruction, all related to their ownership and operation of a business in Pensacola known as Creation Science Evangelism Enterprises/Ministry (“Creation Science Evangelism”). Both defendants were convicted as charged, and Kent Hovind was sentenced to a 120 month prison term. The jury also forfeited $430,400 to the United States.

Based on the jury’s verdict and pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 982, which provides for the criminal forfeiture of property interests in certain instances, the Court entered an Order forfeiting the Hovinds’ interest in the $430,400 to the United States and a subsequent Order – referred to here as the “Forfeiture Order” – forfeiting their interests in ten parcels of real property in partial substitution of the $430,400 forfeiture judgment. The charges in the present case relate to Hovind’s fraudulent efforts to prevent the Government from disposing of nine of those ten parcels of property. Count Three of the Superseding Indictment specifically charged the following:

Between on or about May 22, 2013, and on or about May 29, 2013, in the Northern District of Florida and elsewhere, the defendant, Kent E. Hovind, did willfully and knowingly disobey and resist a lawful process, decree, and command of a court of the United States, that is,

[1] an Order Forfeiting Substitute Property dated June 28, 2007, forfeiting defendant Kent E. Hovind’s right, title, and interest in the pieces of real property identified therein [i.e., the “Forfeiture Order”], and

[2] the Order dated June 27, 2012, which enjoined Creation Science Evangelism, Creation Science Evangelism Foundation, 21 Cummings Road Trust, 400 Block Cummings Subdivision Trust, 5720 N. Palafox Trust, 5800 N. Palafox Trust, 29 Cummings Road Trust, and any agent or representative acting on their behalf, to take no further action to file or attempt to file any liens, notices, financing statements, and claims of whatever nature with the Clerk of Court in and for Escambia County, or attempt in any manner to cloud title on said properties without first obtaining the advice of a licensed Florida attorney or an Order from the Court. In violation of Title 18, United States Code, Section 401(3).

Doc. 28, at 8-9. The Verdict Form required the jury to consider each Order separately, and in doing so, the jury found Hovind guilty of violating only the Forfeiture Order.

Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure directs the court, on a defendant’s motion, to “enter a judgment of acquittal of any offense for which the evidence is insufficient to sustain a conviction.”[footnote 2 not reproduced] Fed. R. Crim. P. 29(a). In deciding a Rule 29(a) motion, the court “view[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the government, with all reasonable inferences and credibility choices made in the government’s favor.” United States v. Holden, 2015 WL 542274 (11th Cir. 2015) (citation omitted). “A jury’s verdict cannot be overturned if any reasonable construction of the evidence would have allowed the jury to find the defendant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Id. (quoting United States v. Capers, 708 F.3d 1286, 1297 (11th Cir. 2013)).

Title 18 of the United States Code section 401 makes it a crime for anyone to disobey or resist a lawful order of a Court of the United States. See 18 U.S.C. § 401. For a defendant to be found guilty of criminal contempt, the Government must prove the following elements beyond a reasonable doubt:

(1) The court entered a lawful order of reasonable specificity;
(2) The defendant violated the order; and
(3) The violation was willful.

United States v. Bernadine, 237 F.3d 1279, 1282 (11th Cir. 2001). See also United States v. Maynard, 933 F.2d 918, 920 (11th Cir. 1991).

Hovind argues he is entitled to Judgment of Acquittal on Count Three because the Forfeiture Order merely forfeits his interest in the properties at issue and does not contain any language, much less clear and specific language, directing him to take or refrain from any action; thus, he cannot be guilty of willfully violating the Order by filing lis pendens on the properties.[footnote 3 not reproduced] In response, the Government argues there was substantial evidence at trial showing that Hovind engaged in a “systematic effort” to disobey and evade the Forfeiture Order, which is more than sufficient to support the jury’s guilty verdict.

In determining whether a court order meets the “reasonable specificity” element, the Court must evaluate the order in the context in which it was entered and the audience to which it was addressed. Bernadine, 237 F.3d at 1282 (internal marks omitted). An order meets the “reasonable specificity” requirement “only if it is clear, definite and unambiguous in requiring [or prohibiting] the action in question.” Id. (internal marks omitted). “The reasonableness of the specificity of an order is a question of fact . . . .” United States v. Turner, 812 F.2d 1552, 1565 (11th Cir. 1987). “Willfullness,” as used in the context of criminal context, is a “deliberate or intended violation” rather than one that is “accidental, inadvertent or negligent.” Bernadine, 237 F.3d at 1282 n.2 (quoting United States v. Baldwin, 770 F.2d 1550, 1558 (11th Cir. 1985)).

There is no question the Government presented substantial evidence at trial from which a reasonable jury could have found that Hovind caused lis pendens to be filed on several of the properties identified in the Forfeiture Order. The question though is whether Hovind’s conduct – particularly, the filing of the lis pendens – was clearly prohibited by the Forfeiture Order. The Forfeiture Order does not specifically prohibit Hovind from filing lis pendens against the forfeited properties; indeed, the Order does not prohibit any conduct at all. Instead, it simply forfeited the real property in partial substitution for the money forfeiture judgment. The Government has not cited any authority for the proposition that Hovind can be guilty of contempt for interfering with or evading an Order that did not speak directly to his conduct. Thus, the guilty verdict on Count Three cannot stand. See United States v. Petroski, 132 F.3d 1454 (5th Cir. 1997) (reversing criminal contempt conviction because written order directing the defendant, a plaintiff’s attorney, “not to . . . introduce any evidence regarding the financial status of the [d]efendant,” did not clearly and unambiguously specify that attorney could not introduce defendant’s payroll information, as opposed to evidence regarding its net worth); cf. In re Fischer, 501 B.R. 346, 350 (B.A.P. 8th Cir. 2013) (finding bank not liable for civil contempt where the order at issue did not impose any duties on the bank, stating, “[ i]f the underlying order contains no operative commands, only abstract legal conclusions or compels no action then a finding of contempt is not warranted”).[footnote 4 not reproduced]

Accordingly, Kent E. Hovind’s Motion for Judgment of Acquittal on Count Three of the Superseding Indictment (Doc. 154) is GRANTED. Judgment will be entered by separate Order.

DONE and ORDERED this 18th day of May, 2015.

--Docket entry 197, May 18, 2015, United States v. Kent E. Hovind and Paul John Hansen, case no. 3:14-cr-00091-MCR, U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Florida (Pensacola Div.) (italic fonts not reproduced) (some bracketed material is in the original).

[Jeffrey]

Can someone explain what the hell just happened in basic english?

[grixit]

Jury: Hovind is guilty and the government gets his property and money.
Judge: So ordered.

Hovind: I'm not giving the government anything.

Gov: Hovind has violated the order and is therefor in contempt.
Jury: He certainly is.
Judge: Right, off he goes.

Hovind: Hey wait a minute, the previous verdict just says the government gets my stuff, not that i have to give it. There was no order to violate.

Appeals Judge: By golly, he's right. Change that last one to Acquitted. All else stands.

[LightinDarkness]

So...because the order to hand over the property said "You are guilty and we get your property" instead of an order "You are guilty and we demand you hand over your property" - Hovind gets the contempt charge dropped?

If that is the case, I stand amazed on two counts:
(1) First, even if there isn't an "operative command," why wouldn't it be assumed that he had to hand over property? The only other option is to take it by force, which costs the government money, and why should the government do that when Hovind is the one found guilty?
(2) How could the judge realize the need for an "operative command" and yet completely forget to include a few words making it a command in the ruling?

[Pottapaug1938]

Boy -- the apple seems more rotten than the tree:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressiv ... ids-is-ok/

[NYGman]

Boy -- the apple seems more rotten than the tree:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressiv ... ids-is-ok/

But then again, he does not believe in Evolution, so I guess he is saying Duggar is Guilty as Hell... Oh, and by the way, Evolution has nothing to do with this issue.

[Pottapaug1938]

Boy -- the apple seems more rotten than the tree:

http://www.patheos.com/blogs/progressiv ... ids-is-ok/

But then again, he does not believe in Evolution, so I guess he is saying Duggar is Guilty as Hell... Oh, and by the way, Evolution has nothing to do with this issue.

I agree completely. The only reason why I posted the link was to draw attention to the bizarre defense of child molestation which Eric Hovind is making. I am no fan of creationism; but I will be the first to say the being a creationist does not make one hold sick ideas such as this.