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 profitsFederal 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.