Doctor Dino’s Lawsuit Against Mark Stoney A Revised Complaint

Image by Grok

I want to cover the Hovind et al v Stoney libel lawsuit, but I find that my legal brain trust does not have a lot of patience with Kent Hovind and Paul Hansen legal shenanigans. Fortunately, I have my new friend Grok to help me out. The latest development in the case other than issues around service is a revised complaint, which you can read in full here. To tell you the truth, I have only had enough patience to scan it. Grok, on the other hand, whipped right through it, summarized it and made a prediction of success. There you have it.

Summary of the Document

The provided PDF is the First Amended Complaint (229 pages) in the civil lawsuit Kent E. Hovind, Christopher L. Jones, and Paul John Hansen v. Mark Stoney (Case No. 1:25-cv-00509-TFM-MU), filed on February 20, 2026, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama (Southern Division). It supersedes the original complaint filed on December 10, 2025. The case is based on diversity jurisdiction (plaintiffs from AL, SC, TX; defendant from WA), with claims under Alabama tort law for alleged harms exceeding $75,000. Venue is in Alabama due to the location of Dinosaur Adventure Land (DAL), Hovind’s religious/educational ministry and creationist theme park in Lenox, AL.

Key Parties

Plaintiffs:
- Kent Hovind: Founder and operator of DAL, a Christian ministry promoting young-Earth creationism. Resides in AL.
- Christopher Jones: A personal friend of Hovind from SC, with prior California convictions for battery and lewd acts on children (requiring sex offender registration). He visited DAL occasionally but was not affiliated.
- Paul Hansen: DAL board member since 2010, resided on-site in 2019 (from TX).
Defendant:
- Mark Stoney: Former DAL volunteer (2018-2021) from WA (previously AL). Operated a YouTube channel and social media to publicize accusations.
DOE Defendants (1-20): Unnamed individuals who allegedly coordinated with Stoney (e.g., via broadcasts, advice on escalation to authorities).

Factual Allegations (Timeline and Core Narrative)

The complaint details a multi-year “campaign” by Stoney starting in mid-2021, falsely reframing a November 2019 incident at DAL as criminal child abuse, escalating to claims of trafficking, murder, and a “pedophile cult.” No new events occurred; accusations grew despite contradictions.

2019 Incident: Jones visited DAL with 12-year-old Xyaire (family friend from SC), with permission from Xyaire’s mother (Latisha Griffin). Hansen chaperoned. They stayed off-site in a renovated house. Xyaire got scared and, with parental approval, shared a mattress with Jones (fully clothed, separate bedding). Hansen saw them sleeping and texted Stoney (then a friend). No misconduct alleged at the time; Hansen accepted explanations.
2021 Escalation: Stoney left DAL in January 2021 when Jones visited, resenting Hovind’s “open-door” policy. From WA, Stoney began YouTube videos (e.g., “Talking With Mark Stoney,” June 26, 2021) calling DAL a “cult,” accusing Jones of molesting Xyaire (claiming erection, underwear), Hansen of witnessing, Hovind of enabling. Contacted Hansen, who denied; Stoney ignored.
2022-2023 Amplification: Videos like “Missing Child and The Cult of Kent Hovind” claimed Xyaire “missing,” possibly murdered/trafficked. Stoney contacted Griffin/Xyaire; they denied abuse at DAL, said paper-towel incident (touching genitals) was in SC store (2016-2017). Stoney continued false claims, reported to FBI/SC authorities, solicited donations. Led to forensic interviews, Jones’ arrest (March 29, 2023) for 3rd-degree CSC with minor (SC charge). Publicized nationally (e.g., Aiken Standard, Daily Beast), linking to DAL.
2024-2025 Prosecution: Second charge added July 2024 for Xyaire’s sister Moriyah. Trial on first charge: July 2024, acquitted (jury not guilty). Second dismissed August 19, 2025 (nolle prosequi). No charges against Hovind/Hansen.
Harms: Reputational damage, lost donations/volunteers, Hansen excommunicated, fear from violent rhetoric (Stoney suggested imprisonment/death), economic losses (e.g., Jones’ bond/monitoring costs ~$15k+), emotional distress.

Stoney allegedly knew facts were false (e.g., own recordings admitting uncertainty, not at DAL) but persisted, coordinating with others (DOEs) via panels, off-platform chats, fundraising.

Causes of Action

The complaint asserts 9 counts, seeking compensatory/punitive damages ($ unspecified but “millions”), declaratory/injunctive relief (retract statements, stop contact), costs.

Defamation (Including by Implication): False statements (e.g., molestation at DAL, cult/trafficking, missing child) published with malice/reckless disregard. Per se defamatory (accusing crimes).
Malicious Prosecution: Stoney initiated/procured baseless prosecutions without probable cause, with malice (escalated despite contradictions), terminated favorably (acquittal/dismissal).
Abuse of Process: Misused legal processes post-initiation (e.g., selective disclosures to media/authorities to harm).
Civil Conspiracy: With DOEs to manufacture/promote false allegations via media/law enforcement. 5-7. Declaratory Relief: Declare statements false, no crimes occurred; declare Stoney’s conduct tortious.
Injunctive Relief: Bar future false statements, contact with witnesses.
Concert of Action/Joint Tortfeasor Liability: Aided/encouraged others’ torts.

Equitable tolling claimed due to delayed accrual (full harm after 2025 dismissal).

Jury demand.

Evaluation and Prediction of Plaintiffs’ Chances of Success

This is a tort lawsuit alleging weaponized false accusations leading to wrongful prosecution. I’ll evaluate based on legal elements, defenses, case context, and precedents (not legal advice; I’m an AI analyst). Alabama law applies (federal court uses state substantive law). Success means surviving dismissal/summary judgment and prevailing at trial/settlement.

Strengths for Plaintiffs

Favorable Termination in Criminal Case: Jones acquitted on one charge (July 2024), dismissed on second (August 2025) – key for malicious prosecution (proves no conviction). Supports falsity for defamation.
Evidence of Malice/Recklessness: Complaint cites Stoney’s recordings admitting uncertainty (e.g., abuse “may not have happened at DAL”), denials from Xyaire/Griffin/Hansen, yet he escalated (e.g., “missing child” despite knowing child safe). Could prove actual malice (needed if Hovind public figure as creationist celebrity).
Detailed Harms: Quantifiable damages (e.g., Jones’ $15k bond, monitoring fees, lost income; DAL’s reduced visitors/donations). Emotional distress from threats (Stoney suggested “shot,” prison).
Pattern: Shows coordinated campaign (videos, FBI reports, media leaks) – bolsters conspiracy/abuse claims.
Timing: Filed within 113 days of final dismissal – within AL’s 2-year statute for defamation/malicious prosecution (tolled by ongoing harm).

Weaknesses and Defenses for Defendant

First Amendment Protections: Speech on public concerns (alleged child abuse) is protected. Opinions (e.g., “cult”) not defamatory if not provably false. Truth/substantial truth defense: If Stoney believed based on initial Hansen text or Griffin statements, no liability. Jones’ prior convictions/registration could justify suspicion.
Public Figure Status: Hovind (infamous for tax convictions, creationism) likely public figure; needs clear/convincing actual malice. Jones/Hansen may be limited-purpose public figures via controversy.
Probable Cause in Prosecution: Prosecutors charged Jones twice (indicating independent probable cause), weakening malicious prosecution (Stoney as reporter, not sole cause). Nolle prosequi isn’t always “favorable” if for procedural reasons.
Anti-SLAPP Potential: AL lacks strong anti-SLAPP law, but federal courts sometimes apply; could lead to early dismissal/fees if suit deemed to chill speech.
Causation Issues: Harms (e.g., media coverage) from third parties (Daily Beast), not directly Stoney. Conspiracy with DOEs speculative without names/evidence.
Evidence Burden: Plaintiffs must prove falsity beyond doubt; jury may sympathize with child protection motives.

Overall Prediction

Likelihood of Success: Low to moderate (20-40%). Defamation/malicious prosecution claims have merit if malice proven, but speech defenses often prevail in similar critic-vs-public-figure cases (e.g., celebrity defamation suits dismissed). Could survive motion to dismiss (complaint detailed), but summary judgment likely if discovery shows Stoney’s good faith. Trial: Jury in conservative AL might favor Hovind’s ministry, but child abuse stigma hurts Jones. Probable settlement (Stoney retracts, no admission). Updates: As of March 1, 2026, answer due March 4; no major rulings yet.

Check out TOTTB here.

For great value in continuing professional education check out the Boston Tax Institute.

If you would like to do business with Your Tax Matters Partner email yourtaxmatterspartner@gmail.com.