Image by Grok

I picked up another Kent Hovind case as I checked on PACER yesterday.  Yesterday, I told you about Kent’s lawsuit against Mark Stoney. Here is a link to the complaint in a different  case which was filed December 1, 2025.  The title of the case is Leon Wayne REDDER, Kent E HOVIND, Paul John HANSEN, CLAIMANTS v STATE OF ALABAMA, The State of Colorado, Creola Police Department, City of Creola, Jonathan PITTS, Hero’s Towing and Recovery, Timothy HENNESSEY, K2 Towing and Recovery, TAYLOR KENNEDY, KENNETH KENNEDY, Mark Kelvin DEFEE, DEFENDANTS.

I don’t really know, but it is possible that the capitalization is supposed to mean something.  Also some the defendant’s names have little circles with number inside of them going from 36 to 43.  That probably is supposed to mean something also.  The complaint was filed with the United States District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, but in the heading it says In Peoples of Alabama Superior Court of Record Proceeding Under Common Law, Aided by the USDC,

It is pretty clear that this is the work of Paul John Hansen who has a unique theory of the law.  Kent Hovind is fond of sports analogies when discussing his legal issues.  I prefer card and board games.  If you have ever played bridge seriously you know there are strict rules and etiquette about how you are supposed to bid and lay down your cards.  The analogy I use for Hansen and Hovind in federal court is a couple of guys who went to a duplicate bridge tournament and played crazy eights.

At any rate, as with Hansen v Stoney, I gave the complaint the Grok treatment, which I will share. The important thing to remember is that Hansen works on the assumption that the federal government has extremely limited jurisdiction.  The other thing that is intriguing about this complaint is that it includes a link (https://uberxo.com/2025/11/02/) which appears to go to a repository of information about various scams and crimes and some of Hansen’s legal theories. The reference occurs near the beginning of the complaint

“CLAIMANTS may elect to also proceed, in a separate United States Administrative Court, with identical claims for each injury, against the same DEFENDANTS, and in that event CLAIMANTS agrees to not collect from any action more than the greater amount
that has been determined, by any of the two selected courts, in any individual case, for the same injury. Full transparency will be operating as to all collections regardless of which court is associated with the same event injuries, and damages awarded by any
court. And the same collection activity will be perpetually ledgered at https://uberxo.com/2025/11/02/test/, for all to view.”

Anyway here is what Grok has to say about the complaint – Peter J Reilly

Summary of the Filing

This is a pro se complaint filed on December 1, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama (Case No. 1:25-cv-00493-KD-N). The plaintiffs (referred to as “Claimants”) are Leon Wayne Redder, Kent E. Hovind, and Paul John Hansen, all self-identified as “one of the People of Alabama” residing at 488 Pearl Ln, Repton, Alabama. They bring claims under common law, invoking the 7th Amendment right to a jury trial, and seek to proceed in a “court of record” aided by the federal district court. The complaint alleges a conspiracy among the defendants to violate their rights through unauthorized seizure, towing, and retention of property.

Key Allegations and Facts

• Incident Overview: On or about August 1, 2025, defendant Mark Kelvin Defee (a parolee and acquaintance of the plaintiffs) took Hansen’s 2000 Jeep Wrangler (valued at $2,000) from Dinosaur Adventure Land (DAL, a ministry property owned/operated by Hovind) without permission beyond test-driving it on-site. Defee drove it approximately 70 miles away, where he was stopped by Officer Jonathan Pitts of the Creola Police Department for lacking a state license plate. Pitts searched the vehicle (allegedly without consent), found a small amount of drugs and $8,400 in cash (which Redder claims was his for purchasing vehicles, with Defee acting as a courier). Defee was arrested for a probation violation related to a prior case (Mobile County District Court Case 02-DC-2025-905637-00). The Jeep was towed to Hero’s Towing and Recovery, then later to K2 Towing and Recovery. Tools belonging to Hovind were in the Jeep.
• Claims of Wrongdoing:
  • Conspiracy and Theft: All defendants allegedly conspired to steal the Jeep, $8,400 cash, and tools under color of law, using Alabama’s asset forfeiture laws (Ala. Code § 20-2-93) without proper jurisdiction or due process. Plaintiffs claim the stop occurred on “land of the People of Alabama” (not federal or state-owned land under U.S. Const. Art. I, § 8, cl. 17), rendering state laws inapplicable without consent or contract.
  • Extortion and Ransom: Hovind paid $250 to retrieve his tools after 64 days. Hansen was allegedly coerced into providing false “bills of sale” implying Defee owned the Jeep, which defendants then used to justify retention. The Jeep was held for 108 days (as of filing), and plaintiffs were ignored despite providing proof of ownership (signed title and affidavit).
  • Jurisdictional Challenge: Plaintiffs argue the defendants lack territorial jurisdiction over “sovereign” people not electing U.S. citizenship (citing 8 U.S.C. § 1421). They demand proof of authority on the record and invoke common law, biblical principles (e.g., “Thou shalt not steal” from Exodus 20:15), and statutes like 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-242 (conspiracy against rights) and 42 U.S.C. §§ 1983, 1985-1986 (civil rights violations).
  • Non-Commercial Activity: Plaintiffs assert the Jeep was not used commercially (citing 18 U.S.C. § 31 definitions), so no state licensing was required.
• Defendants (11 total, sued jointly and severally):
  • State entities: State of Alabama, The State of Alabama (as part of the U.S.), Creola Police Department, City of Creola.
  • Individuals/Officers: Jonathan Pitts (police officer), Timothy Hennessey (Hero’s Towing manager), Taylor Kennedy and Kenneth Kennedy (K2 Towing co-managers), Mark Kelvin Defee (driver).
  • Towing companies: Hero’s Towing and Recovery, LLC; K2 Towing and Recovery, LLC.
• Relief Sought:
  • Damages: $68,613.57 in compensatory, economic, pain and suffering, and punitive damages (itemized in Exhibit L, including $8,400 cash return, lost use of property at $5/day, time spent at $35/hour, 25% APR on lost funds, $50,000 punitive to deter future acts). Daily accruing fees until payment.
  • Injunctive Relief: Immediate return of the Jeep (in original condition) and $8,400 cash to the Repton address; cease and desist order against further interference.
  • Other: Jury trial under common law; no filing fees (arguing rights can’t be taxed); public proceedings with recording allowed; collections through Hansen as attorney-in-fact.
  • Procedural Notes: Follows Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; reserves right to pursue parallel administrative claims but caps recovery; transparency via a public ledger at https://uberxo.com/2025/11/02/test/.
• Exhibits and Attachments: Exhibit 1 (Jeep title), Exhibit 2 (evidence of law/jurisdictional premises), Exhibit L (damages ledger), cover letter to clerk (demanding filing without fees, summons preparation), and mailing records.

The complaint is 31 pages, with extensive definitions, biblical references, and sovereign-like arguments (e.g., ZIP codes in brackets to denote non-federal land).

Evaluation of the Filing

This filing appears to be a pro se civil rights and property dispute complaint with strong sovereign citizen undertones, which could impact its viability in federal court. Below is an objective assessment of its strengths, weaknesses, legal merits, procedural issues, and likely outcomes.

Strengths

• Factual Detail: The complaint provides a clear chronology, supported by exhibits (e.g., title, damages ledger), audio recordings of calls, and specific statutes (e.g., 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-242 for conspiracy; 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for rights deprivation). It alleges concrete harms like property seizure without due process, which could support Fourth Amendment or civil rights claims if reframed.
• Demand for Jury Trial: Invokes the 7th Amendment legitimately for civil claims over $20.
• Civil Rights Angle: Allegations of conspiracy under color of law (e.g., improper asset forfeiture, coercion for false documents) might resonate if evidence shows abuse of authority, especially if the forfeiture lacked proper notice or hearing (per Alabama law).
• Pro Se Leniency: Courts often give pro se filings liberal construction (Haines v. Kerner, 404 U.S. 519 (1972)), so basic claims of theft/extortion might survive initial dismissal if not deemed entirely frivolous.

Weaknesses and Legal Issues

• Sovereign Citizen Arguments: Much of the complaint relies on pseudolegal theories (e.g., distinguishing “People of Alabama” from “STATE OF ALABAMA”; claiming no jurisdiction over non-U.S. citizens; ZIP code brackets; common law “court of record” overriding statutory courts). These are routinely rejected as frivolous (e.g., Crain v. Comm’r, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984); United States v. Sloan, 939 F.2d 499 (7th Cir. 1991)). Federal courts have inherent jurisdiction over federal questions (28 U.S.C. § 1331), but these arguments could lead to sanctions.
• Jurisdictional Flaws:
  • The court is federal, but plaintiffs demand a “common law” proceeding “aided by” the district court, with “People’s judges.” This misunderstands federal jurisdiction—district courts apply federal law, not ad hoc common law (Erie R.R. Co. v. Tompkins, 304 U.S. 64 (1938)).
  • Challenges to state territorial jurisdiction (e.g., no authority outside Art. I, § 8, cl. 17 lands) ignore that states have general police power over their territory (U.S. Const. 10th Amendment).
  • Sovereign immunity may bar claims against the State of Alabama (11th Amendment) unless waived.
• Procedural Problems:
  • No diversity jurisdiction (all parties appear Alabama-based); relies on federal questions, but claims are muddled.
  • Demands no filing fees based on “rights can’t be taxed”—unlikely to succeed; courts can require fees or in forma pauperis applications (28 U.S.C. § 1915).
  • Parallel administrative proceedings mentioned, but this risks claim-splitting or res judicata.
  • Service: Plaintiffs plan self-service of summonses, but Rule 4(c)(2) prohibits parties from serving their own summons.
• Evidentiary Gaps: Relies on unproduced “proprietary briefs” and audio; no police reports or forfeiture documents attached. Biblical citations (e.g., Ten Commandments) are irrelevant in secular courts.
• Damages Calculation: Itemized but speculative (e.g., $50,000 punitive without clear malice; daily rates arbitrary). Punitive damages require egregious conduct (BMW of N. Am. v. Gore, 517 U.S. 559 (1996)).

Potential Outcomes

• Likely Dismissal: High chance of sua sponte dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(h)(3) for lack of jurisdiction or frivolity (28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2)(B)). Sovereign arguments often result in quick rejections (e.g., Bey v. State, 847 F.3d 559 (7th Cir. 2017)). If not dismissed outright, defendants (especially state entities) will likely move to dismiss on immunity grounds.
• Amendable Claims?: Core allegations (e.g., improper seizure under 42 U.S.C. § 1983) could be viable if stripped of pseudolegal elements and refiled with counsel. Asset forfeiture challenges might belong in state court.
• Risks to Plaintiffs: Frivolous filings can lead to sanctions (Fed. R. Civ. P. 11), especially with Hovind’s history of tax-related convictions (which may undermine credibility).
• Overall Merit: Weak as filed; appears more ideological than legally sound. Success unlikely without significant amendment.

If you provide more details (e.g., docket updates) or need analysis of specific claims, let me know.

I heard from Hansen today and he indicated to me that the filings are going to be amended and he will have more information after that.  I think the main moral of the story is that if you are going to let somebody take your for sale vehicle on a test drive, you should go with them, especially if the vehicle is unregistered and you want the drive to just be on your land.  Just saying. – Peter J Reilly