Kent Hovind’s latest innocence narrative was long delayed (Originally it was going to be a January surprise.  January 2016) and had a false start, but it is up and running now.  It is the work of Brady Byrum.  And whatever else you might think of it, there seems to be an original idea here.

Kent Hovind was convicted on a 58 count indictment in 2006.  He appealed his conviction to the Eleventh Circuit which upheld it. He finished his long sentence last summer and is now on supervised release.

Brady Byrum 

Brady Byrum believes that Kent’s conviction was wrongful and that, the Eleventh Circuit to the contrary notwithstanding, that the conviction can be overturned which will entitle Kent to substantial compensation.

Assuming Brady has arguments that support this conclusion, a conventional approach would be to go back to the Eleventh Circuit and argue that Kent had had ineffective assistance of counsel.  Well, that’s the only thing I can think of anyway.  Brady Byrum is taking a different approach.

He is asking people to watch a series of videos that he believes will convince them that Kent Hovind is innocent and that the people complicit in his conviction, most notably Judge Margaret Casey Rodgers were altogether wicked.

Here are the videos .  I don’t know of anybody who has watched them all.  None on the hearty band of Hovindologists have signed on for it.  Rudy Davis reports that he has started and is convinced that Brady is a legal genius

In the video you get a view of Rudy’s garage which he is cleaning out.  It would make a good setting for a Storage Wars episode.

Anyway Rudy is geared up for the full drill so we will probably be hearing more from him.

After you watch the videos and you are convinced that Kent is innocent you are ready to take the next step, which involves a number of filings.

Forms To Fill Out

The First Set of Forms is addressed to the 11th Circuit.  There is a cover letter which seems to anticipate that the Court might be concerned about getting a boatload of these things.

Then there is a sworn affidavit of criminal complaint, which is, I guess, why you have to really listen, understand and agree with the videos so you can, you know, swear.  Among the things that you swear to is:

.  I AFFIRM that I BELIEVE that because Margaret Catherine Rodgers DID NOT refuse to accept, DID NOT abandon, DID NOT cast out and DID NOT reject the Fraud of the Federal Prosecutors contained in the Indictment thereof, during the above time span between the Indictment Filing Date of July 11, 2006 and the Trial Date of October 18, 2006, in Case Number 3:06CR83/MCR, that she therefore accepted, ratified, approved of and joined in with said Fraud, knowingly, willingly and voluntarily in a conspiracy with the other actors named herein.

OK.  So you just watched a video by a paralegal and you now believe that a judge whose opinion was upheld on appeal was in a conspiracy for accepting an indictment.  Just saying.  Here are a few more of the affirmations.

I AFFIRM I have read the three unoverturned United
States Supreme Court case law quotes from the California Bankers Association
v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21 (1974); U. S. v. Murphy, 809 F. 2d 1427 (9th
Circ. 1987); U.S. v. Mersky, 361 U.S. 431 (1960) cases, that clearly
explain the tenet or maxim of law that when a Statute does not have its own
Implementing Enforcement language, that Regulations must be written by the
Executive Branch Official in charge of enforcement, for the Statute to be lawfully
enforceable, applicable and prosecutable.

 I AFFIRM that I therefore BELIEVE that because the Statute 26 USC 7202 used in Counts One through Twelve of the Indictment in the Case Number of 3:06CR83/MCR had no Enforcement Regulations, it could not have been lawfully enforced against Kent Hovind, and thus SHOULD NOT have been prosecuted against Kent Hovind.

I AFFIRM I have read quotes from at least four separate Federal Case laws U.S. v. Reinis, 794 F.2d 506; U.S. v. Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432; U.S. v. Anzalone, 766 F.2d 676 and U.S. v. Varbel, 780 F.2d. 758 that clearly show the COMPLETE ABSENCE OF CRIMINALITY regarding 18 USC 2 and 31 USC 5313, when the total of transactions conducted by each individual at any single bank, on any single day, did not add up to or go over $10,000.

.  I AFFIRM that this invalidity of the Form 4789 does not JUST strip the one United States District Court in the Northern District of Florida from lawfully prosecuting the 45 Hovind Structuring charges in Case Number 3:06CR83/MCR, this also strips the lawfulness from EVERY OTHER Structuring Charge and conviction across the entire United States of America, filed against every other Defendant, making the alleged offense of Structuring an utter IMPOSSIBILITY when the Form 4789 has NOT EVER been truly mandatory to begin with.

Then there is a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct or Disability and letter to send to your Congressman and Senators looking to impeach Judge Rodgers.

The second set of forms concern one of the prosecutors Michelle Heldmyer.  The third set of forms are, I think to appeal if the first set does not work.

What About Later Case Law?

What is odd about the whole package is the notion that Brady Byrum thinks he has proved that all structuring convictions are invalid and he maintains that Judge Rodgers is criminal for not reaching the same conclusion.  If Kent and Jo Hovind had been the only people to be convicted of structuring, he might have a point, but they are hardly alone as you can see here.

I have to confess that I have not listened to all 12 hours.  I’m more of a reader, but I think I have extracted a key piece from the first video at 26:13.  It is the list of cases that Mr. Byrum will use to build his argument.

US v Reinis – 1986
US v Espriella 1986
US v Varbel 1986
US v Anzalone  1985
US v  Richter 1985
US v $200,000 1984
California Bankers Association v Shultz 1974

What I find interesting is that the statute that the Hovinds were proved to have violated 31 USC 5324 – Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement. was added in 1986.  So none of that case law relates to that statute directly.

There is quite a bit of post-1986 case law that is actually about the statute that the Hovinds were convicted under.  In some instances there were acquittals based on lack of willfulness, but the statute has been upheld.  US v MacPherson, for example, was decided in 2005.

Byrum’s apparent lack of discussion of case law after the statute in question was passed, at least in my mind, greatly weakens his argument.  Frankly arguing that a judge is criminal for not overturning a statute that has been upheld is kind of preposterous.

About The False Start

The false start that I mentioned at the outset is alluded to. In Part 8 at the outset, you will see in small print at the bottom.

The views expressed in these materials are not necessarily the views of CSE Inc or its principals.

I asked Ernie Land of CSE about that and he gave me the following statement

Brady Byrum interviewed Dr. Kent Hovind intensively for weeks as an investigative reporter. After getting all the facts relating to Dr. Hovind’s case Brady Byrum has prepared a very well researched DVD series proving with case law Dr. Hovind’s innocence. The timing could not be more perfect as it seems this election has proven American’s have awaken to the excessive abuse in Politics,  Government and in our Judicial system as well. Many of us felt the Judge was very biased and even overreached in an effort to discriminate against Christians. The DVD series Kent Hovind Innocent revels all those abuses with case law and the real reason codes were made in Congress to prove Dr. Hovind’s innocence. The Ministry and Creation Science Evangelism appreciates Brady exposing these truth’s. With that said we however do not wish to put Dr. Hovind in jeopardy and have made a decision to have Brady market any production third party to us.

Originally the innocence series was being promoted through Kent’s website and the videos were not available on youtube.  You had to spend $50 before you could watch them  They still ask for $50 in the series to get the DVDs but it appears that you can go through the whole exercise without spending any money now and the plan is being promoted on a stand alone basis.


From My Brain Trust

I reached out to my legal brain trust and, not surprisingly, did not find a lawyer who would put in 12 hours watching youtube.  Mainly I was interested in learning whether somebody could get in trouble for doing anything suggested in the videos.  Peter Goldberger did respond with some observations that might be useful even though he did not dive into the material.

Each of the 13 Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals has a process, managed by the Chief Judge of the Circuit, for receiving and acting upon complaints suggesting that a federal judge sitting within that Circuit has engaged in ethical misconduct warranting discipline. The 11th Cir rules and procedures are here.   As you will see, the general information for the public about this process correctly and accurately states, “Almost all complaints in recent years have been dismissed because they do not follow the law about such complaints. The law says that complaints about judges’ decisions and complaints with no evidence to support them must be dismissed. If you are a litigant in a case and believe the judge made a wrong decision—even a very wrong decision—you may not use this procedure to complain about the decision.”  Contrary to what the Hovind website says, this is *not* a process that can lead to “impeachment.’ I have not read the attached model affidavit of complaint, so I cannot say whether it contains any information that would support a valid ethical complaint against Judge Rodgers. Let me just say that I am very skeptical.

The people of the United States have a right under the First Amendment to petition their government for a redress of grievances.  The further suggestion that people should send affidavits to their Representatives and Senators seeking impeachment proceedings against Judge Rodgers are protected by that provision. It would not call this “paper terrorism” in any sense. It is not like filing liens against judges’ and prosecutors’ property, for example, nor does it strike me as similar to filing bogus lawsuits against them.  If you want to see how many federal judges have actually been impeached in the last 225 years, and for what, you can look here.

The same goes for the part of the campaign that suggests filing ethics complaints against the prosecutor with the DOJ’s “Office of Professional Responsibility.”  I have not read the proposed complaint, but I doubt very much it has any legitimate basis. But even if it did, the OPR is a notorious “black hole,” where even serious and legitimate complaints of misconduct against federal prosecutors are generally sent to be covered up, whitewashed, and brushed aside.

I have never seen a campaign organized this way, so it will be interesting to see how it plays out in detail.  If Rudy Davis moves forward with it, I think we can count on getting regular updates on how the various agencies respond.  I’m looking forward to it.

________________________________________________________________________
Peter J Reilly CPA has been following the Kent Hovind story for over four years.