So Lucien Gauthier recommended that I try out Grok. I have been using it for proofreading and have been impressed by its critical comments. I was also impressed by a math check I asked it to do  When I asked it to write short stories based on my teenage years, I was underwhelmed.  Anyway, lately when I look at my Forbes statistics I am disturbed to find that on a day to day basis, three of the five top stories for daily traffic are Hovind related.  Although this is in part due  to my lower productivity due to some health issues and my Lafayette enthusiasm, I still find it disturbing.  One of my dreams is to qualify for a New York Times obituary, which is currently a longshot.  The idea that the headline would be” Peter J Reilly CPA Chronicler of Kent Hovind MIshegas Dies at  ? ” is a little disturbing.  Anyway I decided to ask Grok to analyze the reaction to my Kent Hovind coverage.  Here is what Grok has to say

————————————————————————————————————————————————————————————

Peter J. Reilly, a Forbes contributor known for his tax-related reporting, extensively covered the legal and tax issues surrounding Kent Hovind, a Young Earth Creationist and founder of Creation Science Evangelism (CSE). Commentary on Reilly’s coverage of Hovind comes from various sources, including supporters and critics of Hovind, as well as observers of the broader tax protest and creationism movements. Below is a review of the commentary on Reilly’s work, focusing on its tone, perspective, and perceived biases, drawn from available sources and critical analysis.

Overview of Reilly’s Coverage

Reilly began covering Hovind’s case in 2012, initially through a Tax Court decision involving Hovind’s wife, Jo Delia Hovind. His articles, primarily published on Forbes.com, focus on Hovind’s tax-related legal troubles, including his 2006 conviction for structuring, failure to withhold payroll taxes, and obstructing IRS administration, as well as subsequent charges in 2015 for fraud and contempt of court related to property filings. Reilly’s reporting also touches on Hovind’s Young Earth Creationism, his ministry’s operations, and the social media campaign to “Free Kent Hovind.” His tone is generally analytical, aiming to clarify tax law complexities while exploring the cultural and legal dimensions of Hovind’s story.

Positive Commentary on Reilly’s Coverage

1. Engagement with Complex Issues:
   • Some commentators appreciate Reilly’s ability to delve into the technicalities of Hovind’s tax cases while making them accessible to a general audience. His collaboration with filmmaker Jonathan Schwartz and other “Hovindologists” (e.g., Dee Holmes, Steven Gray, Abigal Megginson) is noted for providing a deeper look into the Pensacola community and Hovind’s supporters. For instance, his coverage of the 2015 trial, including interviews with jurors and Hovind’s associates, is praised for offering a balanced perspective on a polarizing figure.
   • Samuel Brunson, a law professor quoted in Reilly’s work, credits Reilly’s blogging for sparking his interest in Hovind’s case, suggesting that Reilly’s detailed reporting influenced academic discussions on tax law and religious exemptions. Brunson’s book God and the IRS highlights Hovind’s story, partly inspired by Reilly’s coverage.
2. Neutral Stance and Transparency:
   • Reilly is recognized for attempting to maintain neutrality, acknowledging both the government’s case and Hovind’s supporters’ narrative. His self-description as “just a tax blogger” and his admission of not being an investigative reporter resonate with readers who value his humility and focus on tax law over sensationalism.
   • His willingness to engage with Hovind’s supporters, such as Rudy Davis and Ernie Land, and to include their perspectives in his reporting is seen as an effort to present a fuller picture, even if he disagrees with their views. For example, his interviews on A Conversation with… (2015) with Hovind and Land demonstrate an attempt to let them speak for themselves.
3. Critical Examination of Tax Issues:
   • Commentators like Robert Baty, a retired IRS appeals officer, value Reilly’s focus on clarifying misconceptions, such as the distinction between tax evasion and structuring in Hovind’s 2006 conviction. Reilly’s article “Hovind Not In Prison For Income Tax Evasion” (2013) is cited for correcting the narrative that Hovind was jailed solely for tax evasion, emphasizing the structuring charges instead.
   • His critique of Hovind’s use of “Corporation Sole” as a tax-exempt structure is seen as a valuable contribution to discussions about tax compliance for religious organizations, warning ministries against similar schemes.

Critical Commentary on Reilly’s Coverage

1. Perceived Bias Against Hovind:
   • Hovind’s supporters, often referred to as “Hovindicators,” criticize Reilly for allegedly aligning with the government’s narrative and downplaying what they see as persecution of Hovind for his creationist beliefs. The #FreeKent website and Rudy Davis’s YouTube channel (LoneStar1776) suggest that Reilly’s coverage, alongside sites like Hovindology and Kent Hovind and Jo Hovind v USA – IRS, may be influenced by “disinformation agents” or government interests. They point to his frequent collaboration with critics like Dee Holmes and Robert Baty as evidence of bias.
   • For example, in Raw Story Uses Video Editing To Defame Kent Hovind (2016), Reilly is described as having a “gift” for upsetting both Hovind’s supporters and detractors, but the article implies his coverage leans toward skepticism of Hovind’s claims, particularly regarding biblical contradictions and tax protest arguments.
2. Overemphasis on Tax Details Over Broader Context:
   • Some critics argue that Reilly’s focus on tax law minutiae, such as structuring and lis pendens filings, overlooks the broader cultural and religious significance of Hovind’s case. For instance, Nicholas Power, in a Florida Philosophical Review article, discusses Hovind’s appeal to fundamentalist audiences, suggesting that Reilly’s tax-centric lens misses the ideological battle between creationism and “secular humanism” that Hovind’s supporters emphasize.
   • Hovind’s supporters, like those on 2 Peter 3, feel Reilly fails to adequately address their claims of government overreach and “Christian persecution,” particularly in his coverage of the 2015 trial and Judge Margaret Casey Rodgers’s rulings.
3. Engagement with Controversial Sources:
   • Reilly’s reliance on Robert Baty, described by Hovind as a “cranky old man” and suspected by supporters of being a government operative, draws criticism for potentially tainting his objectivity. Baty’s Kent Hovind and Jo Hovind v USA – IRS Facebook page is a key source for Reilly, and critics argue this association aligns him with an anti-Hovind agenda.
   • Similarly, his collaboration with Dee Holmes, who also critiques Scientology, is seen by some as aligning with a broader anti-religious or anti-fundamentalist narrative, though Reilly himself does not explicitly endorse this view.

Mixed Commentary and Broader Observations

1. Polarizing Reception:
   • Reilly’s coverage is polarizing, as noted in Raw Story Uses Video Editing To Defame Kent Hovind, where he is described as managing to “piss off both Hovind supporters and Hovind detractors.” This reflects his attempt to navigate a middle ground, critiquing Hovind’s tax practices while questioning the government’s aggressive prosecution, particularly in the 2015 trial, which he called “overreach and counterproductive.”
   • His engagement with both sides—interviewing Hovind and Land while citing critics like Baty and Holmes—earns him credit for thoroughness but also fuels accusations of playing both sides without taking a definitive stance.
2. Influence on Public Discourse:
   • Reilly’s work has undeniably shaped discussions about Hovind, as evidenced by its influence on Brunson’s academic work and its traction among Hovind’s supporters and critics. His articles, such as “Is Kent Hovind A Tax Protester?” (2014), are referenced in debates about whether Hovind’s actions align with the tax protester movement, with Reilly concluding that Hovind’s earlier advocacy of tax avoidance strategies qualifies him as such, despite his later shift away from those arguments.
   • The Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC) indirectly critiques Reilly’s coverage by noting Hovind’s promotion of antisemitic and anti-government materials, suggesting that Reilly’s focus on tax issues might underplay these broader ideological concerns.
3. Criticism of Sensationalism:
   • Some observers note that Reilly’s coverage, while detailed, occasionally feeds into the sensationalism surrounding Hovind’s case, particularly by amplifying the “Hovindication” movement’s narrative through his reporting on their social media campaigns. His articles on the #FreeKent movement and its figures, like Rudy Davis and Coach Dave Daubenmire, are seen as giving undue attention to fringe voices, though Reilly frames this as documenting a cultural phenomenon.

Critical Analysis

Reilly’s coverage is a rare blend of tax law analysis and cultural commentary, making it a valuable resource for understanding Hovind’s legal battles within the context of his creationist ministry. His strength lies in his ability to unpack complex tax issues—such as structuring, Corporation Sole, and lis pendens filings—while acknowledging the passionate support Hovind garners. However, his reliance on sources like Baty and Holmes, who are openly critical of Hovind, risks alienating supporters and reinforcing perceptions of bias. Conversely, his willingness to engage with Hovind’s narrative, such as through interviews, provides a counterbalance that critics of the government’s actions appreciate.

The commentary suggests that Reilly’s work is most effective when it sticks to tax law and less so when it ventures into the ideological fray, where it struggles to fully capture the religious and conspiratorial dimensions of Hovind’s support base. His critics on both sides highlight the challenge of covering a figure like Hovind, whose case bridges tax law, religion, and conspiracy culture, without being drawn into the polarized narratives surrounding him.

Conclusion

Peter J. Reilly’s coverage of Kent Hovind is widely recognized for its depth and accessibility in explaining tax-related legal issues, earning praise from academics like Samuel Brunson and tax professionals for its clarity. However, it faces criticism from Hovind’s supporters for perceived bias and from others for not fully addressing the broader ideological context. Reilly’s balanced approach, while commendable, leaves him vulnerable to accusations of either government alignment or amplifying fringe voices, reflecting the contentious nature of Hovind’s case. For those seeking a nuanced understanding of the tax disputes, Reilly’s work remains a key resource, though it is best supplemented with perspectives that explore the cultural and religious dimensions more deeply