Wednesday, March 4, 2015

As It Opens In Kent Hovind Trial Government Focuses On Hansen's Extensive Filings

Kent Hovind one of the leading lights in the field of Young Earth Creationism, the notion that there is scientific evidence for a hyper-literal reading of the Book of Genesis, implying that the world is roughly 6,000 years old and dinosaurs and humans must have co-existed.  Nearing the end of a long sentence for tax related crimes, Hovind finds himself on trial this week for fraud and contempt of court related to filings on properties seized in connection with his first conviction.  His co-defendant Paul John Hansen was the trustee of Creation Science Evangelism, Hovind's ministry. Hansen challenges the authority of the government in many areas, including the right to bring him to trial in the federal court in Pensacola.  

Ben Sheffler reports on the second day of the trial. Spectators are forbidden to take notes.

The jurors have been selected, and the Kent Hovind and Paul Hansen trial has begun.

Much of the focus so far has centered around Hansen and his filing of liens in 2011 on at least six of Hovind's Creation Science Evangelism properties.

A June 2012 court order was introduced as evidence by the prosecution, which said none of Hansen's liens would  be recognized by the government and they'd be considered null and void. Christopher Klotz, Hansen's attorney, repeatedly emphasized the date of the order to point out that once the liens were considered null and void, any future filings could also be considered null and void.
The prosecution introduced a letter that warned Hansen that if he disregarded the order and continued filing liens he may be subject to civil prosecution. Klotz was adamant that the letter clearly stated civil and not criminal prosecution in regard to ignoring the order.

The witness, a paralegal who mailed the letter to Hansen's residence in Nebraska in 2012, pointed out there were instances in the letter which used the word "criminal" when referring to other possible reasons for prosecution.

Hansen had filed so many liens, one witness, a notary public from Nebraska, said she couldn’t remember how many times he'd come by for her service because there were too many to count.

It seemed her only purpose was to confirm that Hansen was indeed the man who signed the liens. Klotz subtly pointed this out, asking the witness if she had previously been in contact with the prosecution about the liens, which she had, and asking who made her travel arrangements, to which she said the prosecution did.

Another notary public from Nebraska was brought to Pensacola for the same reason, and both witnesses were released by the prosecution from further testimony.

More than 20 series' of evidence has been presented by the prosecution.

Chief U.S. District Judge M. Casey Rodgers and the attorneys have been cordial with each other, with the attorney's sometimes even assisting the opposing side with documents.

Ben Sheffler is a freelance journalist living in Pensacola, Fla. He's studying psychology at the University of West Florida. You can follow him on Twitter @bensheffler.


  1. There is no evidence. Paul Hansen SIGNED his name on all documents... Why do you need to bring in someone to say... "yep, that's his signature" hahahaha They flew in a couple of notary's to answer a few yes or no questions!

    This case is bull and everyone knows it.

    1. Why is it that the people who support Hovind also cannot write a single grammatically correct sentence? It is likely because Hovind appeals to the illiterate and uneducated.

      I don't know what evidence has been presented at trial, but you can see with your own eyes some of the online documents from Hovind and Hansen. They include:

      1) Kent Hovind's signature and prison ID on the lis pendens. Go to the Escambia County Florida Clerk of the Circuit Court and type in "Hovind" at

      Once there read that Hovind wrote: "Kent E Hovind asks that this Memorandum Of Lis Pendens be recorded as a lien against the above shown parcel(s) of real property, and that a stamped copy of each lien be mailed back to him at the address below."

      2) At, which is Hovind's supportive website, he blogged "I filed a lis pendens in the county office to stop the sale of any other properties."

      That's cut and dry. He states his intent of the lis pendens was to "stop" the government's sale.

      3) As for Hansen, his websites are Go there and search "Hovind." You will see some of the documents and letters Hansen sent the government.

      This includes an illiterate email claiming the US government does not own the property ( ).

      And a "legal brief" from Hansen (notice at the bottom it says "Brief written by Paul John Hansen,") that disputes the federal government's authority to sell the property:

      Then another letter by Hansen to the US Attorney also disputing government authority regarding the land:

      It only took me a few minutes of a research to find online evidence from their own filings and websites linking both Hovind and Hansen to these documents and actions. I can only imagine what the prison phone calls, private emails and witnesses will prove.

    2. “Why do you need to bring in someone to say... "yep, that's his signature"”

      Obviously because when the judge asked the defendants and prosecution to get together and agree on as many facts as they could to save costs, Hanen refused to agree (to stipulate) that the signatures attributed to him were his.

      So the prosecution has two choices -- have a handwriting expert compare signatures and come to the conclusion that the signatures are "consistent with" or "probably by" Hansen or have the notary say "yes, I know it because I was there."

      So if this case is “bull” then why did Hansen waste time and money forcing the government to prove his signature was his signature?

    3. Hansen and Hovind are living the sovcit dream and hypocritically whining about the costs while being able to boast amongst their sovcit constituency that they are winning points when it comes causing the Government to expend limited time and resources to prosecute them.

      As to the question about who paid the travel costs, as I recall the feds were willing to give Hansen an expense paid trip to appear before the grand jury....and he declined.

      Then, later, he was compelled to take the criminal class arrangements made for him by the U.S. Marshal.

  2. What an asinine statement. You know nothing about the law. The prosecution brings in a witnesses to say "yes, I saw him sign this document" because of federal rules of evidence. Does google not work for you?

    Defendants have a constitutional right not to testify and the government needs witnesses to connect evidence to the accused. In this case, the notaries tie Hansen's bogus legal filings to the Hovind/Hansen conspiracy.

    Yes, if the defendants wanted to make the case easier and cheaper on the prosecution they could have signed a stipulation before the trial. But there is none.

    A stipulation is not limited to pre-trial motions, however.

    Today the defendants' lawyers could stand up and say, "judge we don't contest those are the defendants' signatures." Why haven't they?

    A stipulation made in court is routine, but the defendants haven't conceded their signatures on the documents. They could have conceded it in their opening statements. They could have done it today. Why not? It would not just save cost, but also time. The likely reason is the defense, as a good lawyer would do, is not going to agree that their client's signature appeared on a document being used to prove mail fraud.

    By the way, the defendants also could have saved cost by just pleading guilty.

    Why don't you actually google the law before shooting your mouth off? Why not ask questions instead of asserting Rudy Davis' ignorance as fact?


  4. An eye-witness of a level-headed young Christian that grew up around Hovind and his ministry. Fascinating. Hovind's out-of-state supporters hate this: