Sunday, February 1, 2015

Is Robert Baty An Agent Of The New World Order's Attack On Kent Hovind?

About The Kent Hovind Controversy

Kent Hovind is one of the leading lights in the field of Young Earth Creationism, the notion that the available physical evidence actually supports a hyper-literal reading of the Book of Genesis.  If you add up all those begats, it comes to about 6,000 years for the age of the physical universe.  If you pick any university you have likely ever heard of and talk to somebody with a PhD in biology, astronomy or geology -well - you won't find much support for that notion.

Doctor Hovind has been in federal prison for the last eight years on tax related charges.  He is now facing new charges related to papers that were filed -lis pendens- in relation to the government's seizure of property owned by Creation Science Evangelism, which the government viewed as an alter ego to Kent.

The Hovindicators

There are many people who believe that the government is engaging in religious persecution in its treatment of Kent Hovind.  They have slogans like Free Kent, Free Hovind, Free Kent Hovind, Insustice Does Not Evolve and HAIR58V (explained below).  The catchiest one, in my opinion is by someone who called for Hovindication.  That has inspired me to dub members of the group Hovindicators, but if any of the major players take that term as mocking or unfair, I am resolved to drop it.

The Militantly Rational

There is another, apparently smaller group, who follow Kent Hovind's drama.  My reading of their collective judgement is that Kent Hovind and his supporters are bat shit crazy or sociopaths in varying proportions. I have not come up with a really catchy name for this group.  In reaction to a blog called the Sensuous Curmudgeon which is dedicated to "Conserving the Enlightenment values of reason, liberty, science, and free enterprise" attacking me as a Hovind supporter, I have dubbed them the Militantly Rational.

As noted by Rudy Davis, in one of his videos, MR has a strong grip on wikipeidia.  The talk page of the Kent Hovind wikipedia article has the following

I see that a blog post from Peter Reilly has been added. I think it should be removed because it is not a WP:RS and hurts the quality of the wiki article.
1) Peter Reilly is a Forbes blog "contributor," not to be confused with staff. That is, he is part of the Forbes blogging network, which is not the same as being published in the Forbes magazine. Thus, it is not a WP:RS.
2) The blog is an op-ed, sympathetic to Hovind. Reilly even manages to connect Wesley Snipes' case to Hovind. Reilly wants Hovind released and was "saddened" to hear that the government is "piling on" with new charges.
3) The blog's actual text is merely recycled block quotes from wikisource, facebook and court rulings that are openly available with a google search anyway. To put it another way, the facts aren't original and were reported elsewhere.
4) His "tax" blog also promotes creationism. Rarely would a RS or newspaper article about criminal charges have a section titled "Some Thoughts On Young Earth Creationism," where tells us about "taking my sister home from Christmas Midnight Mass."
The Forbes' contributor posts should be removed and avoided in the future. They add nothing of merit to the article, and only give a platform to a blogger with a pro-Hovind bias.
There you have it folks according to the infallible source, I'm a blogger with a pro-Hovind bias.

Then There Is Me

I call myself a tax blogger.  I at least look at a large proportion of the original source material that churns out on tax issues.  Decisions of various federal courts, particularly the United States Tax Court, decisions of state courts, IRS rulings of various sort.  I then write about the decisions and rulings that I find interesting.  I have defined my criteria as practical utility, humor and matter for reflection.  The latter category indicates that taxes often impact other controversial areas such as the establishment clause of the First Amendment.  

Sometimes the story behind the story is more interesting than the decision and I will do additional research.  If the story then attracts interest and comments, I will stick with it.  That's how I ended up on the Kent Hovind story.  It goes back to a post in October 2012 title Young Earth Creationists Whipsawed by the IRS about a Tax Court decision in the case of Kent's wife Jo Delia Hovind.  The IRS taxed both Kent and Jo on all the CSE income, since neither ever filed and the IRS could not sort out whose income it really was.  That is what being whipsawed means.  The Tax Court upheld the IRS.

Since the story generated some interest, I started following Kent, much as I had picked up on some other items such as the tax implications of gay marriage and the parsonage exclusion.  In all three instances, I think that I have provided the most thorough coverage of any of the tax bloggers.  The parsonage exclusion brings us to Bob Baty, who is kind of the topic of this post.

Bane Of The Basketball Ministers

Robert Baty spent his career working for the IRS finishing up as an appeals officer.  He is retired and apparently has a good amount of time on his hands.  He posts comments on lots of internet sites that cover topics that he finds interesting.  Since February 2012, he has posted 1.980 comments on, the overwhelming majority, I believe, on my posts.  I've gotta love somebody like that and I do.  On the other hand, I understand perfectly people who think he is a pain in the ass.

Bob and I bonded over the parsonage exclusion.  Code Section 107(2) allows "ministers of the gospel" to exclude from income cash amounts they receive as housing allowance.  The constitutionality of the provision is dubious, but an attack on it by the Freedom From Religion Foundation was knocked down on grounds of standing by the Seventh Circuit this fall.

Bob's real passion in that area is Revenue Ruling 70-549.  The ruling allows colleges affiliated with the Church of Christ to pay tax free housing allowances to all faculty and administration who belong to the Church of Christ, thanks to CC's priesthood of all believers theology.  Hence my dubbing of Bob Baty as Bane of the Basketball Ministers, since the basketball coach would be included.

Bob had this tendency to bring up Rev Rul 70-549 at the drop of a hat, or even when the hat doesn't drop.  I think he has gotten himself banned from some sites because of that.

One of Bob's first comment on was February 15, 2012 on my article on Phil Driscoll who was claiming  a housing allowance for two homes.

Bob was also interested in YEC, but I refused to take it up until the Jo Delia Hovind decision. Since then we have collaborated somewhat in following both parsonage and Hovind matters.   His other obsession is something called presuppositonalism.  I took a guest post from him on that on my non-tax blog, but I still have not figured it out.

A Little Rough Around The Edges

I have to tell you.  Much as I like the guy, if you think he is a pain in the ass, I'm not going to argue with you.  He has this tendency to engage in debates, where he makes up rules and then claims that he has won.  Here is a sample from the comment section of one of my posts.

See, William, you are having trouble dealing with the simplest of matters and want to jump to and fro and evade dealing with the fundamental problem with young-earth creation-science as far as science and the law are concerned. 
It’s my Creationism 101 Critical Thinking Exercise and you have yet to successfully proceed to the point of actually considering (C) of the minor premise of the argument.
Yours is a dodge that is common. 
Are you afraid of demonstrating for us, in the context of the Exercise, what critical thinking skills you have when it comes to properly evaluating the Argument?
Your antics suggest as much.
In the listserv days, Bob would have been considered a flame warrior.

Agent Of The New World Order? 

If you really want to keep up to the minute with Kent Hovind developments.  There are three places you should check out.  One is Rudy Davis's youtube channel LoneStar1776

HAIR58V is Rudy's elevator speech in defense of Kent Hovind.

 The growing consensus among Hovindicators seem to be that their flagship website may be #FreeKent.  It is relatively new, but well put together.

The site Hovindicators like the least is a facebook page started by Bob Baty Kent Hovind and Jo Hovind v USA - IRS.  Little as the Hovindicators may like the clear animus of the site against Doctor Hovind it does have the merit of being pretty thorough and does include much of their material.

This is where it gets a little weird.  Both Rudy Davis and Ernie Land, an old friend of Kent who has taken charge of his defense, believe that there is a massive satanic conspiracy to establish a New World Order.  In Kent's case the IRS is the tip of the spear.  There is nothing new about this in his book The Paranoid Style in American Politics, Richard Hofstadter identifies the tendency
paranoid style—the existence of a vast, insidious, preternaturally effective international conspiratorial network designed to perpetrate acts of the most fiendish character
The conspirators have virtually unlimited resources, since they control the Federal Reserve.  Hence there are well paid disinformation agents spreading lies about Kent Hovind.  So far it seems that Bob's facebook site is as bad as it gets.

OK guys.  Two things/  Bob has not cut me in on the filthy lucre one red cent and again, much as I like the guy, I think if the Federal Reserve, the Illuminati, the Masons, the Jesuits and the IRS met in conclave to select their primary disinformation agent they could do better than Bob Baty.  But that's just me.

How Is It Going?

The Hovindicators have been making quite a bit of noise and, by their lights, shining a lot of light, but they are becoming frustrated in their inability to make it closer to the mainstream.  TigerDan925 discusses that issue in this video with an emphasis on lack of attention from Infowars

He quotes Ernie Land who mentions me indicating that I have let it slip that there is an embargo on this story in the mainstream media.  Here is the email that I sent to Ernie and Rudy that led him to that conclusion.

One of the bloggers rather than saying Free Kent is calling for Hovinication, so I'm thinking of referring to Kent's supporters as Hovindicators.  If you don't like the sound of it, I'll  drop it.
As far as I can tell the most prominent people that you have attracted are Pastors Wiley Drake and James David Manning.  My impression is that Pastor Manning has at least not yet thrown himself in that wholeheartedly.
I understand that you have others who are waiting in the wings not ready to take a public stand.
Is there anybody that I am missing?
I sometimes get things from my editors that are embargoed press releases meaning that we can't write about them until a specified time, but we have time to do our posts and some advance research.  If you manage to get a commitment from somebody prominent, I would really appreciate that kind of heads up.
Maybe it was a silly request, but I thought it was pretty harmless, It seems to have caused some confusion and I'm sorry for that.

I also I think I figured out the source of the rumor that my interview with Kent Hovind was going to run on CNN.  Jonathan Schwartz of Interlock Media told Ernie that the studio that we were using is sometimes used by CNN.

As the email indicates my inner investigative reporter is hoping this story breaks out.  It is starting to shout down my inner good citizen who hopes that Kent will come around and the government will go easy on him.  Kent has laid out his terms for a deal

All the US attorney has to do is drop the current charges, reverse the previous conviction and return all money and seized property and Kent will stop speaking out and not sue them.  He will even ask God to forgive them,  Hopefully the US attorney will think of that as a first offer and start negotiating.

We'll see.


  1. "Free Kent Hovind" has finally taken to deleting all rational comments to his YouTube propaganda videos. This is a good example of why these creationists need to be opposed. Just think what they will do if we let them play with matches?

    1. The anonymous proprietor of the related site also appears to use the same technique.

      I posted a comment there to the blog entry regarding "sovereign citizens" which was my poll question and narrative as to whether I should accept Dan Bidondi's invitation to simply call in cold to his Truth Radio show tomorrow in order to discuss Kent Hovind's legal problems or whatever Dan and I might have a mutual interest in discussing.

      It first went to moderated status and then seemed to disappear altogether.

    2. Having commented on pro-Hovind sites for a decade, it is completely routine for them to delete negative comments and then crow about the silence of their detractors. It was the thing that cued me early to the fact that these people are petulant children. Go anywhere near them with a fact and they break out in boils.

    3. Oh man, am I bummed I missed seeing THIS when it first came out.... :-)

      Welcome to the circus y'all.

      Ya know... The other element you seem to be omitting, Peter (and whoever else), is that prior to being arrested in the manner of a midnight SWAT-team raid (which makes perfect sense right?), Kent actually spoke about issues that went even went beyond matters such as the indefensible illogic of evolutionary theory, or the question of how many elements within the broader governmental matrix are possibly more voluntary and contractual than is widely assumed....

      He himself spoke a fair amount about the existence of a New World Order agenda, and honestly none of those kinds of assertions he made were at all unique or originated with him.

      What was unique? Here was a figure who was routinely embarrassing evolutionist academics in debates, and at the same connecting the fact that the theory of Evolution is itself a philosophical, even religious, tenet at it's core.

      Interestingly enough it is the same basic premise as that which the belief system of Luciferianism is based upon. The underlying assumption that our collective human destiny is to "advance", evolve, ascend. In short, to become gods ourselves...

      I know it's easy to poke fun at Texans making youtube videos, and take pot shots at issues which you yourselves have most likely never actually looked into yourselves....

      I thought such ideas were completely insane myself. Before I bothered to look on my own, instead of just swimming along with the assumptions of the majority.

      I would not make leaps in assuming what sorts of things are ultimately driving a man like Baty. But almost 2,000 comments on alone? That's, um, that's like a full time job! Give the man a cookie for being dedicated I guess.... All in all, I don't take him for a "secret agent", when really you don't have to connect a whole lot of dots to see the obvious correlation between a obsessed-hater-of-Creationism acting like a giddy little school boy at the sight of the incarceration of one of the world's most renowned Creation apologists....

      Mr. Zamprogno here, on the other hand, would seem to have a rather different underlying motive for spending so much of his free time attacking an individual such as Hovind....

    4. The poster writes, in part:

      - "...being arrested in the manner of a midnight
      - SWAT-team raid (which makes perfect sense right?)"

      The manner in which Kent and Jo were taken into custody does, in fact, make perfect sense; it was accomplished without incident as they say in the business.

      Otherwise, Kent was known to possess various firearms, including an assault weapon.

      Kent and his people are fond of claiming certain inflammatory details regarding Jo's having been taken into custody, and I have always wondered about that.

      Fortunately, Kent revealed some important clues recently; claiming he did not witness Jo's arrest and that there were also female agents present during the event.

      Regarding the exact details that might now be alleged, Kent also told his people to "ask Jo". I am all for Jo and the agents being interrogated about those details since Kent and his people are so hung up on publicizing their unsubstantiated version of the event.

      The poster also wrote, in part:

      - "I would not make leaps in assuming what sorts
      - of things are ultimately driving a man like Baty."

      That would seem to be intended as a joke or maybe it was just an outright lie (since Kent's people seem to prefer to spend their time quibbling about who they think is lying and what is a lie).

      In any case, it looks like the poster proceeded in doing just what he said he would not do.


      Interesting that it has taken me about 3 years to post 2,000 comments on the Forbes website on a variety of issues and I would guess half or less are related to the Hovind caper.

      I'm thinking that, by comparison, Rudy Davis has made over 2,000 phone calls regarding Hovind in less than 3 months and spewed out more words than I could if I talked non-stop for the next 3 months.

      The hypocrisy is, indeed, strong in these Hovindites.

    5. What I said was that I would not take any "leaps", did I not? meaning that basically I do not all find it necessary to speculate as to what sorts of grandiose sinister connections a person like yourself might have (and so in that vein I was responding to overall theme of this post).

      In the end, there is no need to cry "NWO shill" on a dude like yourself when the obvious, transparent, everyday, mundane, one-dimensional motives are such low-hanging evolutionary fruit to reach out and grab.

      Hence, I did not "do what I said I wasn't going to do..." But thank you for thinking me cute.... ;-)

  2. I have seen some back and forth from both parties and in my honesty it seems like Kent Hovind did nothing wrong. I may be wrong but I feel like this is a back and forth between people who want government controlling everything, even churches, and freedom in the fashion of the constitution.

    I could be wrong but I see it that way.

    Not sure which side I want to take but I know a lot of people are talking about it.

    1. Fortunately, in our legal system it is the jury that gets to make an informed decision based on the evidence as to whether or not such as Kent is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt or not.

      They found him guilty on all counts, beyond a "reasonable" doubt.

      And from what I know about the case, that was the correct decision.

      If the current case goes to the jury, we may get the same result or a different result.

      I think we should get the same result, based on what I have seen from Kent and his people.

      Kent is already effectively conceding the likelihood he will be found guilty again, but the reasons he gives are not the reasons that is the case. So, Kent and I agree he will likely be found guilty, but we differ as to the reasons for that prospect.

    2. Too be honest there is more evidence in favor of Kent showing he is not guilty of anything he has done. If I were a jury member I would rule not guilty based on evidence.

      I might choose differently as more evidence comes out but for now I don't see why this man is in prison especially considering how jury instruction was changed towards the end of the hearing and all the other stuff that transpired.

      I dont know maybe things will change. It is interesting to learn about. I hope we find justice that's all I'm saying.

    3. No, Anonymous, there is not more evidence of his innocence as to the applicable laws used to convict Kent Hovind.

      You sound like Jerry Rose and similar Hovindites. Jerry recently admitted he didn't care about the facts and the law; he just likes Kent.

      That you refer to the jury instruction issue is another clue that you don't really know enough to make an informed decision about the proceedings and that, like so many other Hovindites, you prefer to talk about many things other than Kent's criminal history.

      It is interesting and Kent and his people do put on a good show. There's already plenty out there if you care to dig into the details. I look forward to possibly hearing of your "evolving" insight into Kent's criminal activities; whether or not you agree with the laws or not.

    4. You are guilty of structuring everyone is its ridiculous in fact we have broken many federal laws today. I think you should go to prison because of whatever reason I want to throw you away for. Put yourself in a corrupt persons shoes. If I were corrupt and I did not like your religion as is the case with the judge who is guilty of anti christianity and psychotically ranted about Dr. Dino being a leader of an organized crime syndicate then yes sure you are right throw kent away.

      I am now in support of Dr. Dino after much investigation it is sad to see this man go through this ridiculousness.

      Maybe you guys can sway my opinion but for now I am entitled to decide Kent is indeed being persecuted.

      Again the mere logical fact that we all break federal laws that can throw us away with out knowing what we are doing is a strong point. not including all the evidence pointing to the judge being anti christianity.

    5. Of course you are entitled to your opinions about such things and we are entitled to form our own opinions as to how reasonable and how informed your opinions are.

      I have my opinions about that.
      Others may have differing opinions.

      It appears you lack a basic understanding as to the structuring issue, and other fundamental/substantive matters, which I have had a special interest in resolving since Kent and his people have been falsely representing that matter for a long, long time.

      Here's my simple proposition regarding the structuring issue which Kent's people haven't been able to openly and honestly deal with and work with me to resolve. It's quite simple and rather uncontroversial except for Kent's and his peoples' insistence on misrepresenting.

      Proposition 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

      Maybe Dan Bidondi and I will get into that this evening, though Dan has yet to explicitly either affirm or deny it and agree to discuss it.

    6. I affirm it is a poorly written law that you affirm to have broken as I have. So I can affirm I can not speak for anyone else.

      The law is meant to be used by corrupt individuals or authoritys that want to hurt someone they do not like hence why the bias anti chrisitanity judge rodgers utterly violated the irs publication on free kent hovind website that proves kent did nothing wrong. Here is the link

      I break this law all the time and so do all americans. It is like saying dont use your money whether you deposit it or not because you intend to evade bank reporting requirements just by the mere fact you are spending your money because you are trying to evade taxes...

      Earth to dumb dumbs we pay sales tax gas tax service tax etc... etc... etc...

      It is a ridiculous law and I affirm I have broken it and you affirm you have as well

    7. Nope, "Anonymous", you still demonstrate that you "don't get it", but that is fine.

      I get that you can't demonstrate that you "get it".

      Just had trouble trying to get Dan Bidondi and Rudy Davis to just agree or disagree with me as to what the law is, without regard to whether or not they agree with the law or how it applies to Kent.

      Did you catch the show?
      It should be up on YouTube or wherever before long.

    8. I get that you can't demonstrate that you "get it".
      LOL. So because he made a valid point about Kent Hovind showing no intent to use this withdrawn money in an illegal fashion he doesn't get it? Mr. Baty your arguments are Batty. Can you prove Mr. Hovind had any malicious intent with the money that was withdrawn? Did the money go to drugs, scams, or anything else sinister?
      In the end you agree with us that Kent was put in jail for withdrawing money from his bank account. Wow what a criminal!

    9. I think the argument would be that he used the money to pay people who it was determined were employees in cash in order to avoid payroll filing requirements. Not really that excited, but still one of the other crimes he was convicted of.

  3. The good news Mr Baty is God will be your final Judge. And if you do not Repent of that vicious Lie you put out there of Ms Gea and Mr Hovind, your judgement might becoming sooner than later.

    1. @ Herbielina,

      I'm glad to see you have some concern about repentance and the future we all face before God. You most assuredly have your work cut out for you with Kent Hovind and his people.

      Do keep us advised as to how that is going. Last I heard, the "leader of the pack", Kent Hovind, remains UNrepentant.

      As for me, it seems that you have a very short-sighted view of things and before daring to make your claim you did not give and the readers the courtesy of providing a link and a quote of something I may have said about the relationship between Gea and Kent.

      Did you hear about Charles Manson's recent marriage to a younger woman. It seems young women have a tendency to form romantic attractions to men in prison, like Kent.

      As long as Kent and his people can make ipse dixit claim about such personal relationships as Kent might have with other women, I feel it most appropriate to suggest alternatives.

      Come on, Kent wouldn't be the first married Baptist preacher to go after younger women or even have younger women come after them. No telling where that Gea might wind up if Kent is allowed to nurture that relationship.

      Also, as long as Kent and his people keep bringing the Hovind family into things, suggesting Jo has an adopted daugher and Kent A. and Marlissa and Eric have a "step-sister", I think it appropriate to suggest they need to speak out as to the relationship Kent may be developing with Gea and the other women in his growing cult.

      I'm not looking to really ever fine out the truth about all of that and expect to ever remain a field ripe for speculation.

    Robert Baty has been suspended from facebook for 30 days due to harassment, stalking, filing false police reports about "child abuse" and death threats from his buddies... domestic terrorists is the right term.

    Robert Baty Violates More Laws In Kent Hovind Vs IRS Facebook Page:

    Increase In ISIS Terrorism, Hillary Obama Foreign Interests Support Domestic Terrorist:

    ISIS Trojan Horse Is Internet Recruiting, Harassement And Evil People In Government:

    Robert Baty Next? FBI Investigates Internet Stalker Where Facebook Won’t:

    EXPOSED: Peter Reilly’s Kent Hovind, Interlock Media And The Allure Of Conspiracy:

    1. Well, look who showed up. Surprise, surprise, surprise. It's the cowardly anonymous freekenthovind. I mean seriously, what an idiot. The person with the short-short hot pants, an assault rifle to fondle and constipation of the brain and diarrhea of the mouth. Lol, you better watch out Robert, I think you have a stalker that has a crush on you.

    2. In addition to my response noted below, it also occurred to me that Kent might really be ticked off because his handlers have prevented him from launching his "winter-spring surprise" that was supposed to call 10,000 of his followers together to write somebody about something that would be his 2006 convictions reversed and result in an award of millions in damages.

      Kent claimed to have lawyers working on that and teams from around the world.....and it all seems to have fizzled.

      Kent, tell us what became of that project!

      Kent, you don't have to take your frustrations out on me; you just need to be open and honest in dealing with your problems.

      Come out, Kent, and I can help you!


  5. Something sure seems to have ticked off Kent Hovind and his minions in recent days, as further evidenced by the most recent post above from some anonymous and cowardly sort.

    Was it:

    Kent's problem with having sent his wife to prison?

    Kent's problem with child labor laws?

    Kent's problem with labor laws generally?

    Kent's alleged dismissal from a job for inappropriate child touching?

    Kent's alleged personal responsibility for the disabilities of his son Andrew?

    Perhaps it is the potential claim that Kent was personally responsible for the death of one or more of his first 3 children?

    Something else?

    Kent, come out, we can talk!
    We have lots to talk about!

    My challenge to you currently has 58 propositions from which we can choose.