This is something of a scoop and I have a lot of other things going on so I am leaning on my friend Grok to fill you in.  If you only want to use your own intelligence, here is a link to the complaint.  – Peter J Reilly

Here is what Grok has to say about the complaint

Summary of the Complaint

The complaint in Kent E. Hovind et al. v. Mark Stoney (Case No. 1:25-cv-00509), filed on December 10, 2025, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Alabama, alleges defamation, defamation by implication, and intentional infliction of emotional distress. It was filed pro se by Kent E. Hovind on behalf of all plaintiffs. The document is 9 pages long, focusing on a multi-year campaign of alleged false and malicious statements by the defendant.

• Parties Involved:

  • Plaintiffs: Kent E. Hovind (Alabama resident), Dinosaur Adventure Land (a 501(c)(3) non-profit in Alabama), Christopher L. Jones (South Carolina resident, formerly Alabama), Paul John Hansen (Texas resident).
  • Defendant: Mark Stoney (citizenship not specified, but diversity is asserted).

• Basis for Jurisdiction and Venue: Diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 (complete diversity and amount in controversy over $75,000). Venue in the Southern District of Alabama under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(2), as key events occurred there.

• Key Allegations and Facts: The plaintiffs claim Stoney, a former volunteer at Dinosaur Adventure Land (DAL) from June 2018 until his departure around January 2021, harbored a vendetta after feeling disrespected by Hovind. This stemmed from tensions involving Jones, a registered sex offender and long-time friend of Hovind, who visited DAL in 2019 and 2021. Stoney allegedly left DAL, moved to Washington, and began a smear campaign to destroy Hovind’s ministry.

  Specific allegations include:

  • Accusing DAL of being a “nexus for pedophiles,” a child sex-trafficking ring, and a cult.
  • Fabricating conspiracy theories about kidnapping, drugging, raping, murdering, and burying bodies on DAL property.
  • Weaponizing government agencies against Jones as part of the vendetta.
  • On June 26, 2021, appearing on the YouTube channel “Atheist Junior” to slander Hovind as a fraud, non-Christian, “wolf in sheep’s clothing,” protector of pedophiles, shady businessman, and cult leader. Stoney allegedly said Hovind uses thugs for intimidation, deserves more prison time (referencing Hovind’s prior tax conviction), and caused multiple deaths at DAL due to neglect (falsely inflating a single drowning incident involving a child supervised by his father).
  • These statements were intended to deter visitors, harm reputations, and incite risk to plaintiffs’ lives, with actual malice.

• Claims:

  • Defamation: Direct false statements of moral turpitude and criminal behavior.
  • Defamation by Implication: Implied falsehoods supporting the accusations.
  • Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: Severe emotional harm from the malicious pattern of conduct.

• Relief Sought: The complaint does not explicitly quantify damages but implies compensatory and punitive relief exceeding $75,000, based on reputational harm, emotional distress, and business impact to DAL. No jury demand is noted.

• Exhibits/Attachments: None mentioned or attached in the complaint.

The filing emphasizes that all statements are provably false, and plaintiffs deny any such conduct.

Evaluation

This is a standard civil tort action under diversity jurisdiction, appropriately venued in Alabama where DAL operates and events allegedly occurred. As a pro se filing, it meets basic pleading requirements under Fed. R. Civ. P. 8 by providing a short, plain statement of claims, facts, and relief. The narrative is coherent, chronological, and cites specific dates, statements, and contexts (e.g., the 2021 YouTube appearance), which could support evidence if substantiated.

Strengths:

• Clear diversity and amount in controversy (reputational harm to a public figure like Hovind and a non-profit could plausibly exceed $75,000).
• Public-figure defamation standards are addressed by alleging “actual malice” (knowledge of falsity or reckless disregard), which is required under New York Times v. Sullivan (1964) for figures like Hovind.
• Multi-plaintiff structure ties individual harms (e.g., Jones targeted by agencies) to collective damage (e.g., DAL’s visitor deterrence).
• Historical context (Stoney’s volunteer role and departure) provides motive, potentially aiding causation proofs.

Weaknesses:

• Lack of specificity on damages: No breakdown of economic losses (e.g., lost revenue at DAL) or evidence of harm (e.g., affidavits, viewer metrics from YouTube), which could invite a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Rule 12(b)(6).
• Pro se pitfalls: Potential procedural errors (e.g., the earlier docket note on a missing signature page). Representing DAL (a corporate entity) without counsel may violate local rules requiring attorney representation for organizations.
• Defamation challenges: Statements might be defended as opinion, hyperbole, or protected speech (e.g., religious critiques). The YouTube context could raise Section 230 immunity if the platform is involved, though the suit targets Stoney directly.
• No mention of physical assault, despite the docket classification including “assault” – this appears mismatched, as claims focus solely on reputational/emotional harm. Libel/slander are covered under defamation.

Overall, the case has moderate viability if evidence (e.g., video transcripts, witness statements) supports the allegations. However, it risks early dismissal or summary judgment if deemed a meritless retaliation against criticism, especially given Hovind’s history of litigating against detractors.

Critique

The complaint reads as a personal grievance dressed in legal terms, heavily emphasizing Stoney’s alleged “vendetta” and “conspiracy theories” without attaching supporting evidence like the YouTube video or agency records. This could weaken its persuasiveness, as courts require more than assertions for defamation claims. The tone is narrative and accusatory, fitting a pro se filing but potentially alienating judges – phrases like “wild conspiracy theories” and “weaponized agencies” evoke sensationalism rather than sober legal argument.

Broader context: This aligns with Hovind’s pattern as a controversial creationist figure (with a 2007-2015 prison stint for tax offenses) who has sued critics, ex-associates, and officials before, often unsuccessfully (e.g., dismissed suits over his conviction). Including Jones (a sex offender) as a plaintiff invites scrutiny, as Stoney’s accusations leverage public records, potentially complicating falsity proofs. Hansen’s involvement (a sovereign citizen advocate with his own legal troubles) adds an eccentric layer but may not strengthen credibility.

If Stoney’s statements were public critiques of DAL as a “cult” or Hovind’s leadership, they might qualify as protected opinion under First Amendment precedents like Milkovich v. Lorain Journal Co. (1990). The suit could be viewed as a SLAPP attempt to chill speech, though Alabama lacks strong anti-SLAPP laws. Success hinges on proving malice and harm; otherwise, it may fizzle like Hovind’s prior cases. Ethically, it highlights tensions in online religious/ideological disputes, where defamation lines blur with free expression.

Coverage

As of December 17, 2025, there remains no media or public coverage of this lawsuit beyond automated docket entries on legal databases (e.g., Justia, PACER). Searches on web and X yield no news articles, blogs, or posts discussing the filing. This is typical for a nascent pro se civil suit without immediate sensational elements. Prior online discussions (2020-2022) about Hovind-Stoney tensions (e.g., YouTube videos on DAL departures) exist but do not reference this 2025 case. If it progresses (e.g., to hearings), coverage might emerge on niche sites tracking creationism or Hovind’s activities.

I had not followed the Hovind Stoney dispute very closely since it was not a tax story.  I asked Grok for a summary and this is what I got.