Sunday, February 22, 2015

Has Kent Hovind Broken Any Laws?

This post is mainly about four letters.  Here is a link to them.  The first letter is one that was sent to three different tax professionals by Kent Hovind and the other three are their answers.  If you already know who Kent Hovind is and what is going on with him, I'd suggest that you read them for yourself, before you go any further.  This is a long post and it is probably a waste of time but I feel kind of obligated to follow through with this analysis.  If you are someone who is going to spread the word that Kent Hovind is an innocent man being persecuted by an evil government, you should at least read the letters and then maybe read my commentary, just so you know there might be another way to look at it.

What Is Up With Kent Hovind?

I have been following the travails of Kent Hovind for over two years,  Kent Hovind is one of the leading lights in Young Earth Creationism, the notion that there is scientific, not just scriptural evidence that the physical universe is roughly 6,000 years old. Kent is nearing the end of a long prison sentence on tax related charges and is facing new criminal charges (trial scheduled March 2)  related to the filing of a lis pendens.  He also faces large civil liability for unpaid income taxes.


In response to his upcoming trial Kent has been giving interviews.  For the most part, they have been to people who uncritically accept his version of events.  He has asked them to make noise and shine light to create public pressure not only to have the current charges dropped, but also to have his previous convictions overturned, all seized property returned and a Congressional investigation into the various abuses that have taken place in his case.  One of his supporters calls that desired result Hovindication.  I have taken to calling Kent's supporters Hovindicators.  They are running a pretty effective social media campaign, which you can read about here.

Peter J Reilly CPA ???SJ???

In a small way, I have become part of the story.  Hovindicators,express outrage about the coverage that they receive form Robert Baty on Kent Hovind and Jo Hovind v USA - IRS and Dee Holmes on Hovindology, but they are not quite sure what to make of the coverage that they have been getting from me on  I have been somewhat ambivalent about Kent Hovind.  I think he has done more time than many, but not all, who have been convicted of similar crimes and have some sense that the government may be piling on with its latest prosecution.  When I see what might have gone on with someone who bought some of the property seized from his ministry , I'm leaning a little more to the government side, although I could probably attribute most of what went on there to Kent's co-defendant Paul John Hansen, who was the trustee of Creation Science Evangelism.

The most vocal Hovindicator is Rudy Davis of LoneStar1776.  Kent seems to call Rudy at least daily and Rudy hosts a weekly conference call in which the Hovindicators, unlike Jesuits or Masons, lay out their plans.  The Jesuit theme is kind of amusing.  I gave Ernie Land a hard time about Rudy speaking ill of the Society of Jesus, which is responsible for eight years of my education.  Somehow that got translated into my being a Jesuit.  I think they still think I may be a Jesuit.

Rudy even identified US Attorney Pamela C. Marsh as a Jesuit, because she is a Georgetown graduate.  Rudy, Pamela there is about the cutest Jesuit I have even seen

The Fundamentals Of Hovindication

At any rate three of the bedrock principles of Hovindication are that Kent Hovind is not a tax protester, he has paid all the taxes that he owes and that he has not broken any laws.  In one of his more recent phone calls with Rudy, Kent challenged me by name, to show him that he has broken a law.  Sorry I lost track of that link.

So that is what this post is about. I have some common ground with Kent Hovind on prison issues and I think that he is totally sincere and probably an all round mensch, but I think that the Hovindication narrative is harmful, dangerous and false.  Kent Hovind's defiance of and disdain for the IRS may be religiously based from his point of view, but the government's prosecution of Kent has nothing to do with his religious views or effectiveness in teaching creation science.  It really is about the taxes and not the dinosaurs.

The Letters

The argument that Kent has not broken any laws and has paid all the taxes that he owes gets somewhat complicated as Kent will discuss his ministry being exempt under a section that is actually a special rule not an exemption section, the CSE staff being missionaries and the IRS being a Puerto Rican collection company.  It is something like the Gish Gallop that his opponents accuse him of using in creation debates. What he focuses on most though is that he solicited letters from a CPA, an attorney and an enrolled agent.  When I interviewed Kent he indicated that he didn't know where the letters were and could not remember the names of the professionals who sent them.

As it turned out the letters were preserved somewhere on the internet and forwarded to me by Bob Baty.  I sent them to Rudy Davis who printed them out and sent them to Kent Hovind who authenticated them.   Here is a link to them.

Hovindicators maintain that the letters prove that Kent is an innocent man who tried to follow the law.  Anything more than cursory examination will not support that view.

What Kent Asked About?

The part of the Hovindication narrative that insists that Kent Hovind told tax professionals everything that was going on and they told him everything he was doing was OK is patently false.  Kent asked only questions  about the supposed entirely voluntary nature of paying income tax and filing Form 1040 (Nothing about ministry or vow of poverty).  Clearly Kent was not asking an opened ended question.  The answer that he was looking for is clear.  Not only that it is likely as you can see from this link that he knew what the answer was going to be.  The Reliance Defense people found a lawyer who would write the kind of letter Kent wanted and a tax consultant, not a CPA.  That accounts for two out of three of Kent letters.  All three of them show up in enough subsequent tax litigation to make a reasonable person question their reliability, but I will focus on the letters themselves

He also asked about the voluntary nature of Social Security, which is a little bizarre since as an ordained minister he could have elected out.  Anyway we'll just stick with the income tax.  A bit more background first.

The Correct Answer To Kent Hovind's Stupid Question

Most ordinary Americans think that they have to file Form 1040 every year if their income is more than insubstantial.  Of course, most of them, even most of those who make their living preparing tax returns, cannot reel off the statutory basis for that requirement.  Well here is a handy mnemonic.  26-1-61-6012.  Title 26 of the United States Code is the Internal Revenue Code .  My language as I discuss this might get a little harsh, as I get a little emotional about this part of the argument

Section 1 imposes a tax on the taxable income of individuals (with different rates depending on family status).  If you go to Webster's II New Riverside University Dictionary, which appears to be the dictionary most favored by the Tax Court, you will see individual defined as a noun as "A human being regarded separately from a group or from society".  So Section 1 imposes the income tax on human being, all of them, in the whole fucking world, which is ridiculous since that would violate a whole bunch of treaties.  It's OK though.  Section 2(d) has a special rule that indicates that in the case of a nonresident alien individual the tax will only be imposed in accordance with Sections 870 and Section 871 which pretty much limit it to what the nonresident alien extracts from the United States.

Section 61  defines gross income which is the starting point for determining taxable income.  The definition is very broad.  Pertinent to Kent' letter included by way of example is- "Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items.

Section 6012  requires filing if gross income is over a specified threshold. which works out to be not all that high.

Chapter 75  backs this all up with a variety of criminal penalties.

Now of course, the income tax is very complicated as you make your way from gross income to taxable income, but that basic part - You have income. You have to file. - really  is not all that complicated, which is why out of the nearly 2,000,000 attorneys, CPAs and enrolled agents in the United States, there are very few that will write you letters that say otherwise. The interesting question is how there can be any at all, which will divert us for a moment

Some Reasons Not To File

Although I believe that there is a clear legal duty to file and pay individual income taxes and that it is really the right thing to do, since it is how many government services, which are important, are financed, there are arguments for not filing that I find make sense even if I don't agree with them.

The first and most common is that you would rather keep the money for yourself and think you can get away with it.  As the enforcement resources of the IRS dwindle, this argument becomes more and more sensible.  The chance of criminal prosecution is remote.  If the IRS catches up with you you can use the collection due process system to work out a payment plan that you find affordable.  There is a decent chance that your old liability will be classified not currently collectible.  After 10 years it will expire.

The second argument that comes to mind is that you are some sort of anarchist and believe that government has no moral authority.

The third is that you are engaging in principled civil disobedience/  The war tax resistance movement works on this principle.  Practice varies, but some war tax resisters will compute their correct tax liability and give it to charity.  There has been legislation introduced to allow war tax resisters to pay taxes restricted from military use, but that has not gotten very far.

Kent Hovind is not maintaining that his refusal to file is based on any of the above arguments.  Rather it is based on a theories like those in the letters, which fairly or not are referred by many as "tax protester" theories. I should note that Kent Hovind indicates that, much as he admires them, he is not himself a tax protester,  Regardless, when he gets into it, he is spouting "tax protester' theories.
Legal commentator Daniel B. Evans has defined tax protesters as people who "refuse to pay taxes or file tax returns out of a mistaken belief that the federal income tax is unconstitutional, invalid, voluntary, or otherwise does not apply to them under one of a number of bizarre arguments."[1] Law Professor Allen D. Madison has described tax protesters as "those who refuse to pay income tax on the basis of some nonsensical legal argument that he or she does not owe tax.

Here is Kent having a conversation with John D'Arcy on some of those theories.

A famous Christian evangelist who shall remain anonymous travels all around the country to churches teaching about Creation Science publishes a newsletter.  He has a series of excellent videos on Creationism and runs a famous ministry we can't name.  We bought is excellent video series which is very enlightening.  Below is the standard form letter that he sends out to any of the people in his church audience who ask him about his position on taxes, and 100% of it agrees with what we say in our Great IRS Hoax book.  His letter is commended for the simple and clear way that he explains the income tax fraud.

I don't think it would be shocking to find out that the "famous creation evangelist" cited on this website is Kent Hovind,  At any rate, the current Hovindication narrative is that Kent was relying on the three letters so that is what we are going to tackle.  Like I said this is a longish post.  In the next part, we will look at the letters that Kent received.

The Framework

 As noted above, the reasoning that supports why you are required to file is fairly simple.  The various theories that say you don't are multifarious and somewhat complicated.  Dan Evans has taken the trouble to catalog many of the arguments and why they fail in The Tax Protester FAQ.  I asked Dan if he would be willing to correlate Kent's letters with his FAQ, but he turned me down.
Seriously?  Guy Curtis, John Schlabach, and Fred Ortiz?  Hovind is relying on them?
They are what I would call the "usual suspects" of what is sometimes called the "reliance defense."  You send them some money, and they send you an opinion that you can supposedly rely on to avoid civil or criminal penalties.  (See
Except it doesn't work.  Hovind is in Florida, where there are lots of lawyers and accountants, and instead he solicits opinions from a lawyer in Nebraska, and bookkeepers in Hawaii and Washington.  But the only reason he would solicit those opinions is that he KNEW that he was facing civil and criminal penalties for what he was doing.  So, rather than protecting him, the opinions just prove that he was willfully violating the law. 
I don't really have time to get into the whys of the wrongness of their opinions, sorry.
So here are the arguments in Hovind's letters and commentary on why they don't work.

Curtis Page 2, Ortiz Page 8, Schlabach Page 5 - The income tax is voluntary

Evans-  This is a corruption of statements made by the IRS, the courts, and Congress to encourage taxpayer compliance with the tax laws, without the need for legal action against taxpayers. The claims that “(1) Compliance with the internal revenue laws is voluntary or optional and not required by law, including arguments that: a. Filing a Federal tax or information return or paying tax is purely voluntary under the law,” or similar arguments described as frivolous in Rev. Rul. 2007-20, 2007-14 I.R.B. 863, has been identified by the IRS as a “frivolous position” that can result in a penalty of $5,000 when asserted in a tax return or included in certain collection-related submissions. Notice 2007-30, 2007-14 I.R.B. 883.

Curtis Page 2, Ortiz Pages 3 and 4, Schlabach Page 9  - Nothing in the Internal Revenue Code makes an ordinary citizen liable for the income tax

Evans -More semantic games from people desperate to evade taxes.
Tax protesters claim that, before anyone can be liable for a tax, there must be a statute that specifically says that the person is liable for the tax (and must use the word “liable”). However, that is not what the law requires.
In its various subsections, section 1 of the Internal Revenue Code says that
“There is hereby imposed on the taxable income of every [married individual, surviving spouse, head of a household, unmarried individual, or married individual filing a separate return] a tax determined in accordance with the following table.. ..”
As explained in the regulations:
“Section 1 of the Code imposes an income tax on the income of every individual who is a citizen or resident of the United States ....”
Treas. Reg. § 1.1-1(a)(1).
The word “impose” means “to establish or apply as compulsory; levy.” So how can a tax be “imposed” if no one is compelled to pay it? The answer is that it can’t. If a tax is imposed on a person’s income, then that person is liable for the tax as a matter of law.

Curtis Page 3 - Filing is voluntary

Evans - Section 6012 therefore provides a very clear and very mechanical rule that requires people to file returns if they have more than a certain amount of income. If the return shows that tax is due, then section 6151 directs the person filing the return to pay the tax. (This is explained above in more detail.)
And so the courts have held that individuals are required to file tax returns.
“As the cited cases, as well as many others, have made abundantly clear, the following arguments alluded to by the Lonsdales are completely lacking in legal merit and patently frivolous: ... (9) individuals are not required to file tax returns fully reporting their income....”
Lonsdale v. United States, 919 F.2d 1440, 1448 (10th Cir. 1990).
“The statutes themselves require the payment of the tax and the filing of a return. 26 U.S.C. § 6012. ... [The] duty to pay those taxes is manifest on the face of the statutes, without any resort to IRS rules, forms or regulations.”
United States v. Bowers, 920 F.2d 220, 222 (4th Cir. 1990).
“Upon review of May’s amended peition, we find no allegations of fact which could give rise to a valid claim; rather, the complaint merely contains conclusory assertions attacking the constitutionality of the Internal Revenue Code and its application to the taxpayer.[Footnote omitted.] Tax protest cases like this one raise no genuine controversy; the underlying legal issues have long been settled. See, e.g., Abrams, 82 T.C. at 406-07 (citing cases rejecting similar arguments). Because May’s petition raised no justiciable claims, the Tax Court properly dismissed the petition for failure to state a claim.”
Curtis Page 3 - Wages Are Not Taxable Income

Evans: As unbelievable as it might sound, some tax protesters simply think that the income tax doesn’t apply to wages

Section 61(a) of the Internal Revenue Code says that “gross income” (which is the starting point for determining “taxable income”) means “all income from whatever source derived, including (but not limited to) the following items: (1) Compensation for services, including fees, commissions, fringe benefits, and similar items....”

Sometimes the claim is that “compensation for services” is not the same as “wages.” Sometimes the claim is that “wages” are not the same as “gain” or “profit.” (See the discussion below on the claim that wages represent an equal, nontaxable exchange of labor for money.) Sometimes the claim is something else. Regardless of the rationale, the result is always the same: Wages are income.

Consider these statements by the United States Supreme Court:

“[T]he earnings of the human brain and hand when unaided by capital ... are commonly dealt with as income in legislation.”

Stratton’s Independence, Ltd. v. Howbert, 231 U.S. 399, 415 (1913).

“There is no doubt that the statute could tax salaries to those who earned them....”

Lucas v. Earl, 281 U.S. 111, 114 (1930).

“[The tax code] is broad enough to include in taxable income any economic or financial benefit conferred on the employee as compensation, whatever the form or mode by which it is effected.”

C.I.R. v. Smith, 324 U.S. 177 (1945).

“Wages usually are income ....”

Central Illinois Public Serv. Co. v. United States, 435 U.S. 21, 25 (1978).

“[T]he premise that personal injury awards cannot involve gain is obviously false, since they often are intended in significant part to compensate for the loss of gain, e. g., lost wages. (Citation omitted.) Since the gain would have been income, surely at least that part of a personal injury award that replaces it must also be income.”

Lukhard v. Reed, 481 U.S. 368, 375 (1987), (plurality opinion of Justice Scalia, joined by Rehnquist, White, and Stevens, Blackmun concurring in the result; footnote omitted).

“The definition of gross income under the Internal Revenue Code sweeps broadly. Section 61(a), 26 U.S.C. 61(a), provides that ‘gross income means all income from whatever source derived,’ subject only to the exclusions specifically enumerated elsewhere in the Code. As this Court has recognized, Congress intended, through 61(a) and its statutory precursors, to exert ‘the full measure of its taxing power,’ [citation omitted] and to bring within the definition of income any ‘accessio[n] to wealth.’ [citation omitted] There is no dispute that the settlement awards in this case [for ‘back wages’ to compensate for sex discrimination] would constitute gross income within the reach of 61(a).”

United States v. Burke, 504 U.S. 229, 233 (1992).

IRS Not Complying With Privacy Act And Paperwork Reduction Act - Ortiz Page 6


At one time, the instructions to Form 1040 referred to section 6001 (the general requirement for a return for different kinds of taxes) but not section 6012 (which requires the filing of income tax returns by those with more than certain amounts of income). The instructions have been changed since then, and the “Disclosure, Privacy Act, and Paperwork Reduction Act Notice” now clearly refers to section 6012 as well as to sections 6001 and 6011.

But even when the instructions referred only to section 6001, courts had no difficulty in concluding that the liability for income tax, and the requirement to file a return, is imposed by the Internal Revenue Code and is not negated by the words used by the IRS on the tax forms. For example:

“[Billman] contends that, as a ‘private individual defined in the Privacy Act,’ he is not required to pay tax because the ‘IRS has admitted that the * * * [Internal Revenue Code] does not apply’ to such individuals. He notes that the Privacy Act requires the Internal Revenue Service to (5 U.S.C. sec. 552a(e)(3)): ‘inform each individual whom it asks to supply information * * * the authority * * * which authorizes the solicitation of the information.’ He then concludes that, because the Form 1040 ‘Privacy Act Notice’ fails to mention section 6012, I.R.C. 1954, he is not required to provide any tax related information and, indeed, is freed from paying any tax at all. In our judgment, petitioner’s position is based on sheer sophistry. We hold that the Form 1040 ‘Privacy Act Notice’ does satisfy the requirements of the Privacy Act, and that, in any event, even if there were a failure to comply with the Privacy Act, such failure would not nullify petitioner’s liability for Federal income taxes.”

Billman v. Commissioner, 83 T.C. 534 (1984), aff’d 847 F.2d 887 (D.C. Cir. 1988).

To Sum Up

Even though, they always lose in court, people like Kent Hovind continue to insist that they are the ones who are right about the law.  Here is what Dan Evans has to say about that which is well worth considering.
I am often asked, “Why do you always assume that the courts are right and the tax protesters are wrong?” Or, “Couldn’t the courts be wrong about what the Constitution means?” Those questions demonstrate that the questioner doesn’t really understand what is meant by “law” or the “rule of law.” 
Law is not some kind of abstraction that floats in the air, free from any connection to people or events. “The law” is what legislatures, courts, and governments do, and the real test of what the law “is” shows in how the law is applied in actual cases. 
So when lawyers talk about what “the law” is, they are talking about how a judge will rule. Not how the judge should rule, or might rule, but will rule. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once explained, “the only definition of law for a lawyer’s purposes is something which the Court will enforce.” Letter to Sir Frederick Pollock, 7/3/1874. Or, more famously: “The prophecies of what the courts will do in fact and nothing more pretentious are what I mean by the law.” The Paths of the Law (1897). 
The process of law is also a process of consensus. We have a variety of procedures, some political, some judicial, and some bureaucratic, for determining what the law should be and how it should be applied. If we don’t like the results, we have ways of changing the results and, when there are conflicts, we have ways of resolving conflicts. However, when the courts, the legislatures, and the voters all agree on what the law is, then that is what the law is. The fact that some people believe that the law should be different that what courts have said it is doesn’t mean that the law is different from what the courts have said, but only that they should argue their positions within the political system and attempt to change the results. 
In the case of the income tax, there is no conflict. The judicial, executive, and legislative branches of our government, and a majority of the voters, have all agreed for more than 90 years that (1) an income tax is constitutional, (2) it applies to wages, and (3) every citizen and resident of every state is required to file a tax return and pay the tax. That is what the law is. There is no question about it,

Has Kent Hovind Broken Any Laws?

So to sum it up, the people who I call conventionally tax compliant, which is most people for whom the whole topic is relevant, it is clear that Kent Hovind has broken the law.  He managed to find a couple of professionals who said he was right but you would think that losing as many times in the courts would convince otherwise.  He is still holding firm with them even though their letters don't address any of the issues which he is in trouble for.

Religious Persecution?

Much as we might admire Hovind's tenacity, it is probably also the source of his harsher treatment.  His supporters will note that he got a longer sentence than others convicted of tax related crime.  Commonly, though, celebrities charge with tax crimes will blame bad advice, plead guilty and say they are sorry.  Treatment is more lenient if you do that. We can point to at least one person, who is similar to Kent who got an even longer sentence.  That would be Irwin Schiff, whom I discuss here.

Schiff may well have created some of the arguments that Kent's advisers rely on.  Schiff of course devoted a much larger portion of his time to preaching his views on income tax, but Kent is clearly using the same playbook and being about as successful.

Hovindicators see Kent's prosecution as being religious persecution.  Kent has relied on the same arguments as Irwin Schiff and has not been sentenced to as much time, yet.  Schiff does not talk about religions much.  As best I can tell he is a non-observant Jew


  1. It's not about whether he has broken any laws, it's how many as might be relevant to the popular public discussion of his legal problems.

    While I can discuss his various criminal activities related to his present circumstances, my special interest has been in Kent's special interest regarding "structuring".

    Kent and his people have trouble admitting to what the law on that is and Kent's violation of it.

    Robert Baty’s Structuring Proposal for Discussion

    Withdrawing less than $10,000 in a single transaction
    with the intent to evade bank reporting requirements
    is a violation of the law and regulations and was at
    the time of the Hovind withdrawals in question and
    was the legal standard used to convict Kent Hovind
    of “structuring”.

    Robert Baty - Affirm
    Kent Hovind - Deny

    1. You admit to lying, then you lie about lying.. you can not be trusted.

      I affirm that RLBaty and Peter Reilly are guilty of structuring and should spend time in prison alongside Kent.

      In fact, I say all Americans are guilty of structuring as proposed in RLBaty's hilarious affirm/deny doublespeak hegelian dialectic nonsense.

    2. To no surprise, the cowardly and gutless, as Dan & Sam of God's Property Radio like to say, Hovindicator returns to make his claim.

      He/she does, however, imply he doesn't know the structuring law used to convict Kent Hovind. Like others so often before him/her, he/she wants to talk about anything but Kent Hovind's legal problems.

      Perhaps if he/she repents, comes out, comes clean, and can bring himself/herself to either affirm or deny the proposition relevant to Kent's legal problems, we can discuss his/her problem regarding that and why Kent and his people don't want to admit to the law used to convict Kent and instead insist on making false and misleading claims just as the anonymous whiner has done above.

      Robert Baty’s Structuring Proposal for Discussion

      Withdrawing less than $10,000 in a single transaction
      with the intent to evade bank reporting requirements
      is a violation of the law and regulations and was at
      the time of the Hovind withdrawals in question and
      was the legal standard used to convict Kent Hovind
      of “structuring”.

      Robert Baty - Affirm
      Kent Hovind - Deny
      Hovind surrogate - (To affirm or deny)

      (Anonymous whiners need not apply!)

      Anonymous whiners, as indicated above, are known to turn against reason when reason turns against them.

      There is no "affirm/deny doublespeak hegelian dialectic nonsense" in the proposition offered for discussion.

      The proposition is simple and directly on point as to the structuring issue in Kent's case and is near and dear to Kent and his people who, rather than admit the obvious to the informed, insist on making false and misleading claims about the law and what Kent was found guilty of regarding the matter.

      They can't stand the truth!

      We've just seen a demonstration of that from the anonymous whiner!

  2. Kent is not guilty of tax evasion, he is guilty of 'structuring'
    FOIA reports Kent is not a tax evader and owes no tax...
    The irs apologized for stealing a quarter billion from Americans
    The irs are used to terrorize Americans and used to shut up political opponents.
    Get it straight.

    FYI I myself am a tax blogger

    1. Kent was convicted of structuring, failing to pay payroll taxes and interfering with the administration of the Internal Revenue Code. What he was convicted of and what laws he may have broken are not exactly the same question. As noted this post is about the letters that he say indicate that he was not breaking any laws. If you want people to read your blog you should give us a link to it.

    2. Kent's status as a tax cheat, a tax evader is not decided by ipse dixit claims regarding FOIA reports.

      I won't guess at what the anonymous whiner had in mind there. If he has the details there might be more to say about that and why he's wrong in his analysis.

      Kent is in prison because of his tax cheating on employment taxes and other related crimes.

      The U.S. Tax Court also found Kent liable for FRAUD penalties regarding his personal income tax liabilities.

      In neither case did Kent actually offer any defense, and that is not for the reasons Kent offers in explanation.

      The recent news report about IRS policies regarding certain enforcement efforts regarding structuring are not relevant to Kent's legal problems.

      I noticed in another recent video that Kent was claiming the IRS had him down as an "underground coal miner in the Virgin Islands".

      Despite my efforts calling him and his people out on that, Kent offered nothing to substantiate his claim.

      I suspect that oft-repeated claim is just wrong, but all can do is note that it is another ipse dixit favorite of Kent and his people that they don't bother with attempting to substantiate.

      I think I know why!

  3. Peter,

    I think that is an excellent analysis that reasonable folks should be able to easily understand whether or not they agree with it.

    Kent has been posturing for the "Cheek/Reliance Defense" for many years and continues to do so. It seems he always has someone else to blame for any criticism sent his way.

    In his previous criminal trial transcript there is a discussion of the "Cheek/Reliance Defense" between the lawyers and the judge. It seemed obvious that Kent was trying to work in a defense or get the Government to put on a defense for him because he already knew he wasn't about to put on a defense directly and wasn't about to take the stand, take the oath, testify and be cross-examined.

    Maybe Kent and Paul will actually put on a defense this time around.
    I won't be surprised if one or both of them chicken out with another lame excuse.

    We will see!

  4. I just ran across a posting of Kent's letter to Scott Schneider, Special Agent for the IRS.

    It is also posted at:

    Quite a piece of work it is!

    I don't think Kent says who wrote it for him.

  5. Over on Lujack's blog, one of the commenters has suggested Kent's legal defense team get in touch with some guy named Marc Stevens, who has been very effective in getting cases thrown out because he knows magic or dark incantations or something. Least that's what they say. I googled around a bit and turns out Dan Evans has had some interesting things to say about Stevens, too. The FreeKent team, it sounds like, is going to try to get him to take the case, though I'm afraid most of Stevens' arguments got disqualified in that pre-trial hearing the other day. Which might be all the better for Kent in the long run -- apparently people who follow Stevens' advice often wind up in deeper trouble than they started out with.

    1. Here's the link to Dan's "dossier" on Marc Stevens. Sounds like he should be able to do Kent as much good as Ernie Land.


      Although in many ways a run-of-the-mill anarchist, Stevens distinguishes himself with bizarre notion that the government does not have "standing" to enforce its own laws in court, and that the court therefore does not have jurisdiction. He also believes that jurisdiction must be "proved" even when the court has jurisdiction as a matter of law, and has raised questions about the difference between "United States" and "United States of America."

      Stevens is not a lawyer, so he was not allowed to represent Edwards in court or allowed to speak on the record, but one of the court documents describes his presence as "to aid in notetaking."

      On Wednesday, October 1, 2014, a federal court jury found James R. Back guilty of three felony counts of making and subscribing false federal income tax returns (tax years 2006 - 2008) under Internal Revenue Code section 7206(1) and four misdemeanor counts of willful failure to file federal income tax returns (tax years 2009 - 2012), under section 7203. See docket entry 89, Oct. 1, 2014, United States v. James R. Back, case no. 3:14-cr-00020-RRB, U.S. District Court for the District of Alaska. Back, who had been a follower of convicted felon Peter Hendrickson, filed a memorandum with the Court prior to his sentencing, stating that he had also been "influenced by, and in essence, was 'represented' by" Marc Stevens during the trial. Sentencing Memorandum, docket entry 103, entered Dec. 10, 2014. Back expressed dissatisfaction with Stevens, adding that Back had "relied solely on the advice of Mr. Stevens," and had not used his standby counsel (a real lawyer), in conducting his defense. Back noted that Stevens "sat through most of the trial, but flew back to Arizona prior to the jury verdict". In the memorandum, Back asserted that Stevens had used Back "as a pawn to further his own agenda with respect to the federal government." The Back memo stated: "Mr. Stevens took to the airwaves after the conviction to criticize Mr. Back’s performance and distance himself from the loss in Federal Court." On December 16, 2014, James Back was sentenced to sixteen months in federal prison, fined $10,000, burdened with a special assessment of $400, plus restitution of $113,286 to the Internal Revenue Service (for federal taxes, etc.) and $17,240.59 to the Department of Justice (for costs of prosecution). James R. Back (inmate # 17586-006) is scheduled for release on November 26, 2015.



      Marc Stevens Says:
      December 26th, 2012 at 10:56 am

      @ Kenny – I’m not a lawyer.

    3. I know of two tax protesters associated with Kent Hovind who are serving sentences as long or longer than Hovind. The first is Joe Sweet, who used the Hovind gazebo to film his "Good News for 1040 Filers" in about 1998. He was sent to prison in 2010 for 10 years. Lindsey Springer was also convicted in 2010 and got a 15 year sentence. He's due for release in 2023. Springer was the destination of the "worse than rape" affidavits collected in 2008.

      Kent may say he is not a tax protester but "birds of a feather flock together."

    4. The more I learn about the true nature of this whole "tax protestor" accusation, the darker it all gets. I believe I already commented a while ago about this sort of thing, but am throwing my neck in for the wolves to chew upon it once more I suppose....

      I guess I am just finding it fascinating that you (Reilly) in the post, fully admit that you have more sympathy towards tax-law-violators who are either A) simply wanting to keep their money out of greed, or B) not paying taxes out of some form of civil disobedience (like protesting war, etc.)

      So basically, now, as I understand it, the simple action of being able to successfully label someone as a "tax protestor", is to essentially find them guilty of a different level of violation, essentially a crime of belief, of intent, of motive. Essentially, a form of political guilt....

      I love the quote from above: "“The law” is what legislatures, courts, and governments do, and the real test of what the law “is” shows in how the law is applied in actual cases.

      So when lawyers talk about what “the law” is, they are talking about how a judge will rule. Not how the judge should rule, or might rule, but will rule. As Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes once explained, “the only definition of law for a lawyer’s purposes is something which the Court will enforce."

      That about says it all, I guess.... It's basically a roundabout way of just saying that it's not about what is "supposed" to be legal, or just, but that whatever the court rules, well, that's the Law! Justice = Enforcement. Gee, that doesn't sound totalitarian or dystopian at all!

      The thing I just find so astounding, is that even if there is absolutely no "religious persecution" going on, per se, in terms of Hovind's teaching on Creationism... (although, I think it's rather transparent that such a thing could never be proven, even if it was true, could it?) What everyone here seems to be outwardly defending is a case of unapologetic political persecution.

      I mean, good grief... I don't think even your hated "tax protestors" would argue with the notion that the "Enforcement" of things like Federal income tax is monolithic, but it seems to me that they are not actually defining terms like "justice" or "legal" simply based on such terms. Of course it's enforced! The longer this whole debate goes, the more disturbing it gets to me, and I'm one of those fairly ordinary "tax-compliant" folks who files all my stupid forms and gives the government whatever they say they are owed. I simply believe that in this country we are supposedly allowed to question every aspect of government from top to bottom, inside and out, and that this is not some kind of dangerous activity or "terrorist thinking", but the very thing that democracy is built upon.....

    5. TTISTF wrote, in part:


      "What everyone here seems to be outwardly defending
      is a case of unapologetic political persecution."



      "I simply believe that in this country we are supposedly
      allowed to question every aspect of government from
      top to bottom, inside and out, and that this is not some
      kind of dangerous activity or 'terrorist thinking', but the
      very thing that democracy is built upon."

      As to (1):

      I know of know one seemingly or matter of factually "defending
      a case of unapologetic political persecution" in the case of Kent Hovind.

      Kent is not being persecuted for his theological beliefs or his political beliefs.

      Kent has been and is being prosecuted for his criminal actions.

      As to (2):

      Kent is not engaged in any legitimate questioning of the tax laws. He has been and is engaged in criminal activity under the guise of an attempt at legitimate questioning.

      He's certainly got plenty of like-minded people falling for it.

      I'm not one of them.

  6. What never ceases to floor me, is how to so many folks who continuously write about Hovind's "crimes" here, it really does appear to offend the senses a thousand times more than say, the outright corporate/banking fraud that occurs right in front of our faces each and every single day...

    Why is Kent Hovind, and his alleged "birds of a feather" viewed as such an existential threat, when there is so much just, staggeringly-titanic-in-size corruption going on each and every day, and somehow that isn't worthy of constant blog posts and comments, etc?? I mean, congress is bought and paid for, lobbyists are basically writing the bills FOR our legislators who may or may not even show up to cast a vote, and the whole thing is such a pathetic, money-driven, greed-infested FARCE, but hmmmm, yeah, let's go fixate on those "tax-protestors" who are really the ones posing a threat to the economy! Good grief. Wake up y'all. Examine your own hearts, and take a good long look at the real world around you and have the courage to really ask some tough questions, and imagine for just a microsecond that the vast institutions of money/power in this country/world are NOT in fact there protecting your or my personal best interests!

    (uh oh, better lock me up too for making a statement about the fact that there is so much MORE that is quite illegal and unjust in our government than just the tax system!)

    1. TTISTF wrote, in part:

      "What never ceases to floor me, is how to so many
      folks who continuously write about Hovind's 'crimes'
      here, it really does appear to offend the senses a
      thousand times more than say, the outright
      corporate/banking fraud that occurs right in front
      of our faces each and every single day....blah, blah
      blah, blah, blah..."

      Those little marks he put around "crimes" with reference to Kent suggests there may be some legitimate question about Kent's criminal history. There is no reasonable doubt about Kent's criminal history.

      The post is oh so typical of what my experience has been with such Hovindicators. They want to talk about anything but Kent Hovind's criminal history and prospects.

      "We" might agree as to all sorts of issues that might be the proper subject of discussion, and there are many places where many people are talking about such things.

      However, it seems disengenuous, even hypocritical, for them to appear where the subject is Hovind and start whining about how, according to them, folks should be out doing something else instead of engaging in the very important, popular, public discussion of things Hovind.

  7. TTISTF wrote, in part:

    "The more I learn about the true nature of this whole
    'tax protestor' accusation, the darker it all gets."

    That darkness, in my opinion, is all a contrivance from the Hovindicator.

    There's nothing dark about it at all and the label fits Kent very well, though where appropriate it can certainly be explained and reasonably justified.

    If you want to delve into the "darkness" regarding Kent's cause, one should consider just one example of how labels are being used to really get dark; "Jezebel".

    The Hovindicators have gone to labeling Beka Horton, Pam Marsh, Tiffany Eggers, Casey Rodgers, Michelle Heldmyer, and even Deana Holmes as "Jezebel" and then hiding behind God as they make their "go to hell" threats about what is likely to happen to them.

    Just consider, one example, the last 3 minutes or so of the following video where Kent's front running public relations promoter goes off the charts in a rant about that matter.

    1. Well I can't answer for that Rudy guy, cuz I'm not him, and I certainly haven't called anyone a "Jezebel", because that's not very loving, and the fact is we're all sinners in need of God's grace and forgiveness. And btw, hearing some dude call others "Jezebel" might indeed be rude, but it's not nearly the "veiled physical threat" you are all trying to make it into. good grief...

      But anyhow, your overall argument about Kent not doing what all he has done in good conscience is itself at the core here, and is ultimately flawed, a nonsensica thing to be trying to prove/disprove in the first place, I would say. If the "crime" is simply the "crime", then why does this question matter so much as to trying to prove this or that about his motives to "question legitimately" or not? (Not to mention, you seem to argue that there is no such thing as a legitimate questioning of anything re:the tax code or IRS anyhow, so...?)

      And btw, it isn't "changing the subject" or anything like that to talk about the broader political/economic conext in which we all live, it's merely an attempt to shine a little perspective o the discussion, a discussion which you seem to be sitting around your house waiting for every little opportunity to write ten more comments against a guy who's already paid a heftier price than anyone on Wall Street who made billions of dollars worth of contrived deals with junk assets etc., who then had US pay THEIR losses, so they could turn around and give themselves huge bonuses for crashing the ship that was "too big to fail".

      But sure, keep obsessing about the Kent Hovinds anf Paul Hansens out there, cuz that's the real travesty.... (!?!?!)

    2. TTISTF writes, in part:


      "Hearing some dude call others "Jezebel"
      might indeed be rude, but it's not nearly the
      'veiled physical threat' you are all trying to
      make it into. good grief..."

      You should know better than pull a stunt like that, but it's sooooo typical of the Hovindicators.

      It is not calling someone "Jezebel" that has been characterized as threatening.


      "It isn't 'changing the subject' or anything
      like that to talk about the broader
      political/economic conext in which we all
      live, it's merely an attempt to shine a little
      perspective o the discussion."

      Actually, it is changing the subject, especially where the context is Kent Hovind's legal problems and the switcherooo is part of a deliberate effort to evade dealing with Kent's long, criminal career and current circumstances.


      "You seem to argue that there is no such
      thing as a legitimate questioning of anything
      re:the tax code or IRS anyhow, so...?"

      No I don't.

      I have even beat back the IRS/Justice Department myself and recently got a federal district judge to declare IRC 107(2) UNconstitutional.

      Kent is not legitimately questioning the tax laws as they apply to him. He could, but that's not what he is all about.


      "I would say. If the 'crime' is simply the
      'crime', then why does this question matter
      so much as to trying to prove this or that
      about his motives to 'question legitimately'
      or not?"

      There is nothing unique about questioning Kent's motives and intent. That is an important factor in many issues.

      I figure Kent keeps on harping about his "reliance defense" because he wants his people to believe he didn't know any better because he just doesn't understand all that tax and legal stuff.

      Kent needs to repent, step up and take responsibility for what he's done.

      As far as obsessions, Rudy is your man to talk to about that and what he might do about it. Or even Kent and his obsession with himself which is common to those with Narcissistic Personality Disorder.

      I am a long way down on that list and look forward to the Hovindicators dealing with their own people about such things. Maybe if they ever work down that list we can talk about my problems if there is still any interest.

    3. On the "intent" issue it is noted that Paul John Hansen has announced his intention to play on that issue, so it seems all the more hypocritical for folks to whine about "intent" issues when it comes to such things.

      That is, Hansen has announced his defense is going to be, in part, "God made me do it".

      We will see if Hansen comes through on that. I don't think it matters as far as the trial phase; it's as much as an admission that he "did it".

      The "intent" issue, if it becomes relevant, will include whether or not the jury believes him.

      Personally, I don't think God made Hansen do it and I don't think Hansen even believes God made him do it.

      That's the risk that goes along with making "intent" claims such as are common to Hansen and Hovind and the Hovindicators; people are not obligated to believe you, and in the case of Hansen, Hovind and the Hovindicators there are often times good reasons not to believe them.


    5. See reply to similar message below.

  8. I would like to hear Kent's comments in a video presentation where he listens to Rudy Davis' latest rant and threats towards the new prosecutor in Kent's case as found at:

    Maybe Kent knows what is going on.
    Maybe not.

    I will assume he knows and approves unless he demonstrates otherwise.

    It is so cute to see Rudy talk about how sweet Kent is while Kent lets folks like Rudy do his dirty work for him in prosecuting the false narrative that has been crafted so as to present Kent as some unfortunate "target" of a renegade governmental agency.


    1. Ah, another whiny Hovind Hypocrite hiding behind his/her/its anonymity.

      Mark Hill at least tried to qualify himself as Kent Hovind's champion, though failing in every effort.

      Mark and I have just set up, at Mark's request, a theological debate involving one of Kent's hobbies.

      That proposition, along with others involving Kent's legal problems and lying ways, can be found in the thread at my place at the following link.

      Lots more good stuff on that page for those with an interest in such things.