UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
PENSACOLA DIVISION
UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,
v. E. HOVIND, and
PAUL JOHN HANSEN,
Defendants.
ORDER
A jury trial in this case commenced on March 12, 2015. At the close of trial, the
jury found Defendant Kent E. Hovind guilty of one count of criminal contempt, as alleged
in Count III of the Indictment. For that particular count, the jury was instructed to specify
which of the two Court Orders charged in Count III Hovind had violated. The jury
determined that Hovind had violated only the Court’s Order Forfeiting Substitute
Property dated June 28, 2007 (“Forfeiture Order”). At the close of the Government’s
case-in-chief, Hovind orally moved for a Judgment of Acquittal under Rule 29 of the
Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, arguing that there was insufficient evidence to
support a conviction for criminal contempt of the Forfeiture Order. The Court took his
motion under advisement, and it remains under advisement.
Before ruling on the motion, the Court wants to give both sides an opportunity to
submit legal argument. Accordingly, the Government and Defendant Hovind shall have
ten (10) days from the date of this Order to submit written arguments in support of or in
opposition to Defendant Kent E. Hovind’s Rule 29 Motion for Judgment of Acquittal with
respect to Count III of the Indictment as it pertains to the June 2007 Forfeiture Order.
DONE AND ORDERED on this 13th day of March 2015.
M. CASEY RODGERS
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Given my experience with the legal system, I am guessing that both sides will wait until the last day, or thereabouts, to submit their arguments.
ReplyDeleteSo, we wait to see what they are.
Beginning about the 13:00 minute mark on this program from Dan & Sam of God's Property Radio, Kent talks about the contempt charge and the 2 Orders.
ReplyDeletePerhaps Kent's comments gives a little insight into his lawyers thinking in asking for an acquittal notwithstanding the verdict.
http://godspropertyradio.podomatic.com/entry/2015-03-14T05_35_52-07_00
Here's another way Kent's position is apparently explained by Ernie Land:
ReplyDeletehttps://www.facebook.com/freedrdino/posts/1030420213652693
(Begin excerpt.)
The Criminal Contempt of Court count contained two different charges.
One charge was from a 2012 order and the other from a 2007 ruling from Judge Rodgers.
Kent was not found guilty on the 2012 charge but was found guilty on the 2007 charge.
This count was from the original 2007 case when Judge Rodgers forfeited Kent Hovind's interest in the property.
The order did not restrict Kent from presenting filings to question this decision; therefore, Kent's attorney asked the Judge to rule that there were not enough facts presented to the jury to find Kent guilty of that verdict.
The Judge said that she would take that under advisement.
(End excerpt.)
We still have to wait for Kent's lawyer to actually submit an argument, but if Ernie has reasonably explained what he is going to try and argue I don't think it will work.
The forfeiture was clearly directed at Kent.
Kent had no claim to the property based on the forfeiture.
Time and opportunity for disputing the forfeiture had passed.
Kent doesn't get to make up the rules as he goes along.
Kent's Bivins action did not keep his claims to the property alive.
The lis pendens were clearly in opposition/contempt of the forfeiture Order.
The jury could have reasonably found Kent in contempt of the forfeiture Order.
That's my off-the-cuff analysis of that.
Maybe in the next 10 days we'll find out what the real story is on Kent's argument.
Maybe Kent will get a pass.
Maybe he won't.
I am very much pleased with the contents you have mentioned. I wanted to thank you for this great article. encontrar pareja
ReplyDelete