I have been following the tax travails of Kent Hovind, Doctor Dino on forbes.com for over two years. As his trial on new charges approaches he has been rallying supporters to shed light and make noise. There is more happening than I can make what I consider forbes worthy, so some of the coverage will be on this site. Here is the latest
Trial Delayed
I got a call this afternoon Kevin Robinson the reporter for the Pensacola News Journal who is covering the Kent Hovind trial. He told me that the case has been continued to March 2. I have to tell you that when I read the Government’s third motion for continuance I was really annoyed. A family matter has caused the government attorney assigned to the case to be out of the office for most of January. I felt like doing a rant like the one Rudy Davis did on me about objecting to the way Kent uses the word “retarded”.
What about Kent being separated from his family for another month? He objected, but apparently the judge went with the Government. Ernie Land commented
Kent adamantly opposed the new delay. The Public Defender wanted to move ahead, even if they had to separate Paul Hansen from Kent. I will assume that the defense motion was denied and the prosecutions motion for delay was allowed. I think once again they bring the case and the judge favors them. Maybe that why so many Federal Public defenders move on to other assignments so quickly since they can never win anything. I’ve even noted the head of the department who is Kent’s Attorney has expressed his opinion on the unfair system. By the way I have a handwritten letter from Kent asking the judge recluse herself because of her known bias toward Christians, as in the contempt of 2 teachers where Congressional leaders did take action to get those dismissed. We have a tough fight to fight here with her at the bench. I will be most happy to lend any help I can toward reports. I do want to be very clear in my/our opinion of the biased judge, the overreach in sentencing as compared to many other tax evaders or even structuring where the money was not used for crimes and many got very light sentences compared to Kent, and the final statement is that Kent did not set out to evade taxes, he set out to set up a Ministry not controlled by the State which was his resistance to a 501c3 Corporation. Those will be my points along with whatever the daily events bring out.
Documents Come To Light
If there is one person not directly involved in the case that the Hovindicators have issues with it is my friend and best commenter, bane of the basketball ministers, retired IRS Appeals officer Bob Baty, whose facebook page Kent Hovind and Jo Hovind v USA – IRS contains a good chronology of coverage from all angles since late July of 2013. Bob has a style that can be a little irritating to some. Hovinidcators tend to be a kind of ambivalent about me, but Bob consistently raises their hackles.
Ironically it was Bob who found the case that calls into question the validity of Kent’s 2006 structuring indictment. Now he has found some more documents.
Kent has maintained that he wrote to and received responses from a lawyer, an enrolled agent and a CPA that told him everything he was doing was OK. Nobody seemed to be able to find them
Bob has found copies of all four of those letters. The documents are of uncertain provenance, so I checked with Ernie Land. He confirmed that he had seen one of them and the names on the others were mentioned in the sentencing transcript that Rudy read.
The are not in a real convenient form but here are the links
Letter From Kent – Page 1 Page 2
Letter From Fred M Ortiz Tax Consultant September 12, 1996
– Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9
Letter From John J Schlabach EA September 10, 1996 (Confirmed by Ernie Land)
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5 Page 6 Page 7 Page 8 Page 9 Page 10 Page 11
Letter From Guy Curtis August 29, 1996
Page 1 Page 2 Page 3 Page 4 Page 5
So once again Bob Baty comes through for the Hovindicators.
Do These Letters Line Up With Kent’s Statements About Them?
Not really. Kent has been saying that he had letters from three tax professionals that told him everything he was doing was OK. As Ernie is wont to point out, despite the large civil liability, Kent was never criminally prosecuted for not filing Form 1040. That is all the letters are about. They say nothing about the way the ministry was run including the payroll tax.
A further drawback is that the arguments in the responses are all arguments that the courts have over and over ruled to be frivolous. Guy Curtis in particular seems to be have been inspired by Irwin Schiff, who like Kent is in federal prison.
In 1999, Ronald McDougle (TCM 1999-264) tried to use letters from Fred Ortiz and Guy Curtis to get out of penalties. The Tax Court was not having any of it
The main theme of the letters, and petitioner’s argument, is that he is not required to file a Federal income tax return because it is a voluntary practice. Paying taxes is not voluntary. See Wilcox v. Commissioner, 848 F.2d 1007, 1008 (9th Cir. 1988), affg. T.C. Memo. 1987-225 ; Carter v. Commissioner, 784 F.2d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 1986); Malone v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998- 372 ; Liddane v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1998- 259 ; Stonerock v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 1986-264 ; see also United States v. Bressler, 772 F.2d 287, 292 (7th Cir. 1985); May v. Commissioner, 752 F.2d 1301, 1304 & n.3 (8th Cir. 1985); United States v. Wilber, 696 F.2d 79, 80 (8th Cir. 1982).
The letters also contain additional hackneyed arguments that have been universally rejected by this and other courts. See Wilcox v. Commissioner, supra; see also Fujita v. Commissioner, T.C. Memo. 19 164 . We shall not painstakingly address petitioner’s assertions “with somber reasoning and copious citation of precedent; to do so might suggest that these arguments have some colorable merit.” See Crain v. Commissioner, 737 F.2d 1417 (5th Cir. 1984). No useful purpose would be served by any further explanation. Suffice to say, petitioner is subject to Federal income tax during the relevant years, and we sustain respondent’s deficiency determinations.
While reliance on advice as to whether a return must be filed may constitute reasonable cause, the person giving that advice must be competent to render that advice and the reliance on that advice must be reasonable. (Emphasis added)
So if Kent’s reliance on the letters was ever reasonable, it stopped being reasonable in 1999.
It is possible that the letters may have been responsible for Kent not being indicted for income tax evasion, so maybe he did get his money’s worth. That is what letters like that were designed for.
Hovindicators?
I noticed this website which had a post titled It Is Time To Rise Up Together and Demand HOVINDICATION. I don’t know who coined the term, but inspired by it I am going to refer to Kent’s most passionate public supporters as Hovindicators. I think they may like it.
Exercise For The Students
I’d be happy to get a guest post from someone who would like to thoroughly deconstruct the arguments in the letters. I really don’t have the patience.
Ernie Land talks about a hand written (frivolous) motion asking the judge to recuse herself.
As we noted in the case of co-conspirator Hansen, Kent may not be able to personally file his frivolous claims because he has a public defender as counsel.
I don't think the public defender is going to be asking for a recusal.
Also, Ernie Land has had ample opportunity to make his claimed 6th Amendment appearance for Kent and file all the motions Kent wants filed, but Ernie is up to acting on his alleged principles.
Judge's typically handle their own contempt cases, and Kent's alleged contempt is what is at the heart of this case. Judge Rodgers is most appropriately handling the matter.
Peter wrote, in part:
– "Ironically it was Bob who found the case that
– calls into question the validity of Kent's 2006
– structuring indictment."
I think that would be the Lang case which I did discover and I proposed that the Hovind people may latch on to it to promote their misrepresentation of the law as it applies to Hovind.
I do not think it useful in actually showing any defect in the charges against Kent and the court's and jury's findings in Kent's case.
In Lang, an 11th Circuit Appeals Court decision, the court concluded that a big amount of money broken down to two or more smaller amounts as part of a structuring scheme would amount to 1 structuring charge.
That's much different than Kent's case.
In Kent's case, each withdrawal was a separate incident and separate case of structuring and so each withdrawal was considered a separate charge of structuring.
The same 11th Circuit Court of Appeals, different judges though, considered the propriety of the individual structuring charges against Kent and determined it was just fine and consistent with the law.
So, one of the first things to do in such cases is consider whether or not there is anything to distinguish the cases considered; Lang & Hovind. There is, and such distinctions as justify the differing results.
Hovind was properly charged, tried and convicted and Lang, being distinguishable, is not controlling.
I think maybe I haven't been hearing Kent's people harp about Lang because they like to spite me and thwart my prophesy about what they might do with it.
Kent continually claims that every tax lawyer he consulted told him he was correct in his analysis. However, this claim is an out and out lie.
David Gibbs is an attorney in Seminole who specialises in advising churches and religious organisations in the running of their affairs. His firm is affiliated to the Christian Law Association an organisation which provides legal information and services to churches and Christians on a national basis with the vast majority of that work being done on a pro bono or a free basis. At the time of the trial Gibbs stated that the association provided information and services to in excess of 10,000 churches nationwide. Kent and his family were members of the same church that Gibbs attended; Gibbs served as general legal counsel to the church and Kent knew the position of the church regarding taxes.
Through a mutual friend Kent met Gibbs one evening at Dinosaur Adventure Land in October 2004 and continually berated him with his personal views on taxation despite Gibbs telling him time and time again that he was wrong. From Gibbs’ testimony at the trial: “And so there were a lot of conversation this evening where he was attempting to convince me that I was wrong and that he was right and that taxes do not have to be paid, as well as withholding tax for employees, that that was not something he had to do.”
To try to assist Kent, Gibbs later set up a telephone conference between Kent, Stoll & Eric on one end of the line and him on the other. Gibbs gave evidence that “Stoll related to me that he wasn’t really an attorney. And, again, I don’t know if he is or not. I just know what he told me in the call. And that, you know, most attorneys, most accountants disagreed with the positions they were taking.”. So Stoll readily admitted that Kent either directly or through Stoll had already received a lot of contrary advice.
Further into his evidence Gibbs says “..that Dr Hovind couldn’t touch any of his money because Mr Stoll had it, Dr Hovind spent it. It was just —it was completely convoluted. Stoll said that “Well, most lawyers and accountants say what you say, but we just kind of fly under the radar”. And I (Gibbs) said but how do you counsel people — I mean , flying under the radar, at some point you’re gong to get hurt. And again, the conversation ended with, you know, basically their viewpoint again, that the tax code — and Dr Hovind wanted to read a number of the provisions to me. I did not have time for that, and esentially I had to, you know, wind in the phone call.”
In other words, as usual, Kent had no regard for expert opinion. He knew it all and he was right. But, worse, he has lied time and time and time again in claiming that all the experts whose advice he had sought confirmed he was correct in his thinking. Even his mentor Stoll (according to Gibbs) admitted that most advice was against Kent’s position.
Who is the retard, Kent?
Kent has to make the decision for anyone, myself or others to be considered his amendment VI "assistance of counsel" in his latest case, and yes Kent went on record asking for that when the judge appointed him the Public Defender, in my opinion violating his Constitutional right. She also entered a plea for Kent that I am told he did not speak. She did the same for Paul, but the records will be doctored not to show all that was spoken, so we will be taking our own reporter to Court, for our own official records to stop this covering up of records. Like the comment many say they heard this Judge speak in a worse than rape statement. I would welcome being Kent's assistance of counsel and I can assure people of several facts that would be brought out. Those are a complete lack of "intent" to defraud a tyrannical corrupt government, which had a private contract CSE, covered in the Constitution, and abridged that contract unconstitutionally by claiming it was a alter ego of Kent. Next I would show a fact that the government admits they did not properly serve notice of the order the judge made to Kent. That alone is cause for dismissal, in fact in any case other than one imposed by a tyrannical corrupt government that would be cause for a judge to immediately dismiss it. I would show this judges bias against Christians, as in the case where she ordered criminal contempt charges against Pace school Teachers for praying over their food at lunch, all dismissed after her bias against religion was exposed. Finally after these facts were brought out in close I would tell the jury to stand strong even against a judges improper jury instruction, which will happen, but if a not guilty verdict did not come back in, I'm sure 1 true American patriot on that jury can and will stand strong and hang the jury over and over again until a tyrannical corrupt government begins to get a message American's are waking up to your violating our Constitutional rights!
Ernie,
If you ever calmed down and got your "walking around sense" on, you and I could possibly have a reasonable and reasoned discussion of various points of mutual interest regarding Kent's legal problems.
For now, I will again express my appreciation for your demonstration. It helps us understand so many of the problems with Kent and his people and where they are coming from.
Your continuing frustration in not being allowed to practice law is always interesting to behold. I hope Kent gives you the word to file your appearance for him so that you can play that hand out instead of just having to put up with your misguided claims about it.
There is nothing particularly peculiar about Kent's case, and nothing conspiratorial as you suggest. Basically, you just don' t like not being able to make all the rules.
For instance, when people like Kent and Paul act up in court, or don't act at all, judges will commonly enter "not guilty" pleas for them so that the case might be properly advanced.
Ernie, remember you said someone hand-delivered the Lis Pendens document(s) to the Court! I am still waiting for you to tell us more about what you know about that (i.e., Ernie, who is it that hand-delivered it to the Court?)
Surely you and Kent know and for some UNgodly reason you are not sharing that information with us.
Kent is harping about wanting full disclosure and this is one small bit of information that you and/or Kent should be telling us. Kent says he has nothing to hide, and yet I can't get this information.
Ernie, speak!
Tell us what you really know about who delivered the Lis Pendens to the Court.
"There is nothing particularly peculiar about Kent's case, and nothing conspiratorial as you suggest. Basically, you just don' t like not being able to make all the rules."
As a retired IRS appeals officer, I suppose it is hardly shocking that you would be difficult to convince that there could possibly be anything sinister or fraudulent about the system which you spent years participating in, or the people who ultimately control it.
But let's stop at think about what's really going on here…. "Contempt of court"? , possibly decades more in prison? For filing liens…? Even if it was decided to be "frivolous" or unnecessary, we are talking about here, really, in terms of the damage done by such an action? I mean, two men in prison now, facing sentences because of liens! I don't know who that Rudy Davis dude is, but he is certainly a bit over the top in his antics (kinda reminds me a little of you Mr. Baty….) But to a degree he has some points, in that, good grief, it is undeniable that the courts are intending to "make an example" out of Kent, and now Hansen as well, because they dared "defy the court" and file some lis pendens? (and regardless of whether they were filed through the mail, or in person, who cares, honestly… The fact that the courts are turning it into another massive "criminal conspiracy"? Good grief!)
This whole fiasco is one never-ending "can't see the forest for the trees" type of scenario. Is it really about the "criminal act" allegedly carried about by an individual who really "defrauded" the government and tried to skimp on paying taxes, or is it, as Ernie said, about the broader question of "How DO you go about functioning as some of religious entity without in some way or another contracting yourself with the government?"
Those are the kinds of questions I am interested in exploring, and as such, I'd even be interested in hearing both Reilly's (and even the hackle-raising Baty's) input on that one…
Otherwise, since the matter of the original alleged "crime" is basically water under the bridge by now, all of this fuss is really over a stinking lien that was (again, allegedly) filed "in opposition to the order of the court".
Knowing many people who have worked extensively in title insurance, I can say that while admittedly, clearing the title of a property of unwanted liens might be a bit of hassle, it certainly doesn't create the kind of "catastrophic" problem that the judge would seem to want to paint it as. Go ahead, find him "guilty" and fine the guy and move on to prosecuting real criminals.
The fact that they are reaching so far as to try and slap him "mail fraud" should tell anyone with a modicum of common sense that there ARE persons, somewhere "in the system", who really are extremely motivated to go after him whichever way they can…. (for whatever reason you might want to speculate about)
(And by the way Mr Reilly, yes, I do believe I was the one who coined the term "HOVINDICATION", and I suppose "Hovindicators" isn't necessarily a pejorative application, so I guess I for one would happily enough accept that label…) I do appreciate your willingness to cover these matters with a fair amount of open-mindedness.
I rather think any re-thinking about one's "worldview" is a burden for the Hovind people to bear. The anonymous poster wrote, in part:
"As a retired IRS appeals officer, I suppose it is hardly shocking that you would be difficult to convince that there could possibly be anything sinister or fraudulent about the system which you spent years participating in, or the people who ultimately control it."
We are talking about Kent's case and cases like his. However, if you want the broader picture,
I happen to be the one that got a federal judge to rule that IRC 107(2) is UNconstitutional.
I also developed the litigating strategy for Mr. Cadrecha's, whose case Peter J. Reilly wrote about, and which allowed him to beat down the IRS and Justice Department on appeal.
I got where the facts and the law lead, and it just ain't what you and Kent's people claim when it comes to Kent's case and cases similar to his.
Do stop and seriously think about what is going on here.
Kent is a rather common tax cheat and sovereign citizen type who got caught and is being compelled to answer for his crimes.
Kent adds to his case by trying to make it a grand conspiracy against God and all that is good, and rallying his considerable array of "flying monkeys" to help put out "noise and not so much light" for public relations purposes.
It makes for some great theater and I encourage people to participate or at least enjoy the show.
You seem to be quite familiar with the technique that is common to Kent and others and is commonly known as the "Gish Gallop".
If you wish to formulate a proposition on which you think we might disagree and have a mutual interest in discussing, feel free to offer it up, with your real name and background and some references. You seem to know a little about me and I know nothing of you and have little interest in getting too serious with anonymous snipers and whiners.
We can then try to advance the conversation by working out the appropriate logistical details that would make our engagement more profitable for us and our viewing audience.
Here's a point we might even agree on with some explanation:
"It is undeniable that the courts are intending to
"make an example" out of Kent, and now Hansen
as well, because they…"
Nothing unusual about that.
Making examples of scofflaws is part of the legitimate ends of law enforcement.
And if the regular media ever pick up on the story, this is an ideal time to give the tax cheatin' sovereign citizen movement some "noise and light"; with emphasis on those domestic terrorists like Kent and his people who insist on using God to cover for their criminal antics.
In case you haven't heard, Kent's crimes are pretty serious, despite your efforts to diminish them. They don't all get caught and the Government hasn't the resources to prosecute them all and has to pick and choose their cases carefully.
One of the legitimate goals as to the use of such cases as are chosen is to discourage others from acting out like Kent has.
The current charges are not because Kent and Paul conspired to file lis pendens. The current charges are because Kent and Paul conspired in a scheme that would be a violation of a court order and such criminal contempt for a court order is a most serious matter and it doesn't really matter if you want to opine that it is not so.
Now, I have given you a point you made that I disagree on.
Now, will you suggest a proposition you think we disagree on and might have a mutual interest in discussing?
P.S. – From the beginning Kent has had it within his own power to minimize the consequences of his criminal acts; and so it is with reference to the new charges. The problem is Kent has yet to repent and begin to bring forth his works meet for such repentance. As a result, Kent has and is getting what he willingly bargained for and is living a sovereign citizen's dream. Who are you to complain about that! Kent's "lovin' it" and he doesn't have to face the prospect that he may have to, for public relations purposes, return to the woman he sent to prison and make lovey dovey for the cameras with her. I'm still think Jo would just as soon Kent stay in custody and leave her alone as he has done enough damage to her and he has not repented of it.
You reveal more of your true heart and internal motivations witb almost every comment you leave. "sovereign citizen types" and "domestic terrorists" indeed. Once again I thank you for personifying the true nature of the opposition to Kent. I'm sure everyone is quite impressed with your honorable love for your country and all your efforts online to combat this form of "terrorism"…
What a patriot you surely are…
(And btw Mr. Baty, I don't know anything about you other than what I've seen online centering around your crusade to publicly a man already in prison, and what you've written in passionate opposition to biblical Creationism (hmmmm, think there might be a connection there…?)
But if you seriously wanted to know more about my views on the world and such, you could of course peruse my blog. I suspect the only reason you'd want to know my name would be to do your best to slander whatever personal aspects you could muster, in the same way you have continued to do about Kent and his private life etc. That is pathetic on your part, pure and simple. You don't care about "justice" when you mock an imprisoned man's marriage, you simply show how hard your own heart really is….
Of course I reveal my heart and motivations in what I post, but they are not such as might be commonly alleged by Hovind-ites who have a problem with seeing and hearing the truth on such and related matters.
Sovereign citizens are domestic terrorists of the paper kind and on up to the murderous kind; it's a spectrum disorder and we might get a very good display of the spectrum depending on who shows up in Pensacola for Kent's trial if it goes forward.
Kent and his people are about as far from being "patriotic" as any citizen in this country can get.
I notice, as anticipated, that you hide behind your anonymity in order to take your cheap shots without fear of being held personally accountable and lamely trying to present a reason for your "gutlessness" as Kent's boys at "God's Property Radio" like to characterize such antics.
Let me know when you are ready to get serious, put up a proposition dealing with Kent's legal problems that you think we might have some disagreement on and are willing to discuss and we can talk about how best to produce such a discussion.
Ernie,
What control did Pastor Mooneyhan ever have over Kent's organisation?
What control did Glen Stoll ever have over Kent's organisation?
Did either gentleman at any time have any rights or obligations as a Trustee of the organisation?
Did either have any control over “church” funds?
Did either have any rights as Trustee to dispose of any “church” property with or without Kent's prior approval.
Did either have any signing rights over any of the bank accounts relating to the organisation and, if so, were they ever exercised?
Did either ever receive even as much as a bank statement in relation to Kent’s organisation?
Did Kent at any time during their trusteeship have the ability to withdraw funds from the organisation’s bank accounts without first consulting either gentleman?
Did Kent have the ability to purchase or sell any real property held in the name(s) of his organisation without first consulting either gentleman?
If neither Mooneyhan nor Stoll were ever able to exercise any effective control over the organisation on what basis do you suggest that it was not Kent’s alter ego?