Wednesday, March 11, 2015

Breaking - Jury Begins Deliberations In Kent Hovind Trial

Kent Hovind is 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. YEC implies 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.

I just heard from Jonathan Schwartz that the jury has begun deliberating.  He found the presentations of all three attorneys to be brilliant.  The male attorneys for Hovind and Hansen put on pretty much of a modified good old boy defense.  Attorney Klotz indicated that Paul John Hansen had a brilliant legal mind that was stuck in 1776.  The issue is whether Hansen and Hovind were willfully breaking the law not whether they were correct in their filings.  Particularly when it comes to Hansen, it sounds reminiscent of the defense that Irwin Schiff's attorneys put up.
even though these cases, properly understood, do not support Mr. Schiff’s professed beliefs, they do contain language which, if honestly misconstrued and read out of context, could lead someone without legal training to believe that taxable income is limited to corporate profits
Federal prosecutor Tiffany Eggars got the final word and emphasized Hovind's statement to his daughter that the lis pendens was like putting dog crap on the government's shoes and that he would never give up trying to get the property back - filing, filing, filing because the best defense is a good offense - and it's fun.

Jonathan has a hard time seeing how the jury will be able to reach a unanimous verdict.


  1. No evidence
    This whole thing is a circus act

  2. Hi Erin,

    Don't be so paranoid. Regarding your statements today, correlation is not causation.

  3. Well, I would agree that Hovind and Hansen put on a good act.

    Will the jury buy it!

    I don't think so, but I could be wrong.

  4. I'm concerned that due to the attempts at jury tampering by the Kent Hovind Fan Club, we might get a hung jury. That, by the way, is not nullification. It is jury tampering.

    1. Dee,

      Would you think that if it is the case that there is one or more, but not 12, voting for acquittal that the judge could keep them going for quite awhile before declaring a hung jury and giving the Government an opportunity for do-over?

  5. We were at the tial strictly too see what was going on, no real position on the case. We only saw the closing arguments. There is a definite attempt to influence the Jury by the spectators. The praying at the noon recess started out calm, but got obnoxious towards the end. Extremely loud with the intent to be herd by the Jury. I did not understand why the marshals let it get so loud with the obvious attempt to influence the jury. The defender for Hansen was defending Hansen and Hovind and fairly convincing. Hovind's defender was much weaker. Both defense attorneys acknowledged the events the Government claim too happened, happened. They just claim there was no intent to commit fraud or conspiracy. The prosecution was very convincing and presentation communicated a much stronger argument. Mail fraud may be tough to prove, contempt should be a unanimous gulity decision. The behavior of both defendants was acknowledged as unwise by the defense, just not illegal.

    1. Thanks for that account.

      You indicate the defense for both men claimed there was no "intent".

      Did the prosecution take the position that "intent" was not needed and/or that "intent" might be imputed as a result of their alleged "willful ignorance" if you believe they were as ignorant as they seem to claim?

    2. The prosecutions position is they tried to set up the defense of ignorance and lack of intent, However the evidence shows "willful ignorance" and intent to work the system with pseudo legal documents to obstruct already settled law.

      The defense position is they intended no fraud or conspiracy, they just made bad choices and tried to work within the legal system on their own. Klotz also tried to portray this is about the little guy who unwisely took on the government, and the government wants to make an example of him with this case.

    3. I also want to add that the person who owns the land now, evidently an elderly man named Juwarski actually felt his life savings was at risk due to the defendants action.

      I was not there for the whole trial but it seems to be based Hovind not accepting previous judgments and settled law and trying to find some way, no matter how frivolous or deceptive, to beat the government and get what he considers his property back. I believe they proved contempt and that there was collusion between Hanson and Hovind, but how convincing the witness testimony was, I can't speak to that.