The trials, literally, and tribulations of Independent Baptist minister and young earth creationist Kent Hovind have spawned a support group, whom I have taken to calling Hovindicators. You might compare them to the Dreyfusards. Only the tend to be more right wing than left wing. They have not attracted a writer of the stature of Emile Zola and there are hints of Antisemitism among prominent Hovindicators such as Rudy Davis (a charge he denies).
And of course Hovindicators are mostly Americans. Other than that they are just like the Dreyfusards.
JJ MacNab who follows the sovereign citizen movement, which is where the Hovindicators seem to have the most traction, is not that impressed with their efforts so far. She wrote me recently
Hovind is a weird case. Much of his support online seems to come from the same people who have registered for multiple accounts trying to set up a lot of smoke and mirrors.JJ's book The Seditionists: Inside the Explosive World of Anti-Government Extremism in America will be released in the fall.
Once you leave that core group of followers, he’s almost unknown. Every now and then someone like Pete Santilli will pay attention, but the vast majority of wingnuts in the movement have never heard of him.
I take it that you’ve been communicating with the former IRS agent. He’s been trying to get me to write about Hovind for years, but the tax protest movement is all but gone, other than some clean-up work by the IRS and a handful of gurus who still keep plugging away.
Tax protesting morphed into sovereign citizen schemes roughly eight years ago, and the SovCit movement is currently evolving from the paperwork phase into a more violent, rebellious, anarchistic group which is one of the factors behind the surge in militia numbers.
Hovind is like a tax protest dinosaur trying to remain relevant in a world populated with angry cavemen with semi-automatic clubs.
The "former IRS agent" that JJ mentions is Robert Baty. Bob finished a long career with the IRS as an appeals officer. He seems to have a lot of time on his hand when he is not watching the grandchildren and has three major obsessions, two of which I share. Those two are Code Section 107, which allows "ministers of the gospel" to claim exclusion from taxable income of amounts paid as housing allowances and the Kent Hovind case. The third is something called presuppositionalism, which I have resolved not to try to figure out until I have mastered semiotics.
Bob administers a facebook site called Kent Hovind and Jo Hovind v USA - IRS . The site includes some unfounded speculations and irrelevant personal attacks, but it is also remarkable for its thoroughness in covering every aspect of the case. Hovindicators speculate that Bob Baty is a paid disinformation agent of the IRS. Their "smoking gun" to prove the assertion is Bob's refusal to answer Don Bidondi's question in this interview.
I sometimes think that if Bob Baty did not exist, the Hovindicators would have to invent him. For the Hovindicators Bob Baty plays the role that Goldstein played for the Inner Party in 1984.
The above is a rather lengthy introduction to a debate challenge that Baty has issued which I am presenting below.
This is an invitation intended to remain open until such time as Kent Hovind or his designated representative are able to successfully complete a discussion of the differences between my representation of the structuring law applicable to Kent Hovind's case and the way Kent Hovind and his people have been representing the law since before Kent was convicted.
Alternatively, no discussion will be necessary and the controversy resolved with Kent Hovind's clear, explicit, public and unambiguous acceptance of my representation of the law as applicable to his case, as stated below.
Robert Baty’s Structuring Proposal 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
Kent Hovind - Deny
Recently, one of Kent Hovind's sympathizers, David Buzulak , and I had an exchange on the issue. David eventually admitted his agreement with Kent Hovind on the proposition but would not engage in a discussion of the merits of our respective positions. David preferred to evade the discussion and drone on and on about recent news stories regarding the IRS and certain enforcement policies regarding structuring which do not have relevance to the legal issues involved in the Kent Hovind case.
I have had similar exchanges with Kent Hovind sympathizers. While once in awhile one of them might realize I am correct in my representation and Kent Hovind is wrong, for the most part they remain in denial.
It becomes rather wearisome to have to deal with lesser lights amongst the Hovindicator movement while observing Kent Hovind and his leading promoters continuing to make false and/or misleading claims regarding the law applicable to the Kent Hovind case.
So, the time seems ripe to call out Kent Hovind, as Goliath called out the Israelites of old.
Will Kent Hovind come out to me?
Will Kent Hovind send his champion out to me?
Will Kent Hovind repent and admit that I am right?
Once Kent decides, if he ever does, to come out to me or send his appointed champion, we will endeavor to negotiate the appropriate logistical details to advance the conversation and resolve our difference on the matter.
Kent Hovind has recently claimed that understanding the structuring issue in his case is the key to understanding his legal problems.
I will accept that as supporting my effort and the importance of the the discussion proposed in this message.
Peter J Reilly CPA hopes to become the first tax blogger to give up his day job. Soliciting free content is a key part of his business plan.
I was glad to see that JJ had commented on the case, Peter.
ReplyDeleteShe is one of the sovcit experts.
For those unawares, Ernie Land, Kent's right hand man, popped in and popped off about my invitation on Peter's FaceBook page where he posted the link to this article.
Ernie immediately went to whining about the recent press coverage of certain IRS policies and enforcement efforts which are not relevant to the Kent Hovind case.
Shame on Ernie Land and other Hovindicators who have done likewise in promoting the False Hovind Narrative.
Ernie, if anyone can, should be taking the invitation to Kent and getting Kent to come out to me or appoint his champion in order that we might attempt to resolve the simple matter as to the legal standard used to charge, try and convict Kent Hovind on certain structuring charges.
Ernie appears to have turned tail and run.
I may have to rely on someone else with access to Kent.
As has been typical of Ernie and Hovindicators, their exit strategy in such cases seems to be to label the opposition "fool" and thereby justify their UNgodly conduct and refusal to man up to their responsibilities.
Of course, in days gone by I have already beat Ernie Land down on the structuring issue and his quibbling over the 6th Amendment and his frustrations in not being a lawyer and able to really practice law.
Ernie didn't like that.
It shows.
Robert Baty is a joke. His facebook site is full of garbage and that is why everyone is leaving. The guy is hurting you and your team Peter. Everything has been documented and will be made public >>> http://freekenthovind.com/2015/02/13/supporter-slams-kent-hovind-anti-christian-defamer/
ReplyDeleteNo, Mr. Anonymous, You Hovind zombies are hurting Kent, everyday and with every word you spew out while you run your necks. Lets take for example I thought I was past the point of being amazed by conservative wing nuts like coach Dave, but I can see I was mistaken. We have shined the light on this guy and made him unemployable. And now he is a fund raiser for Kent Hovind? contact the IRS and report this. And KEEP YOUR CHILDREN AWAY FROM Coach Dave's son. Coach Dave's son is a convicted pedophile.
DeleteCoach is on his own... He is his own man... Must of Kent's supporters have nothing to do with the guy.
DeleteHe has taken it on himself to raise money for Kent's defense fund. Has nothing to do with Kent or most of his supporters.
No, the Hovindicators retreat to the sites they control in which they brook no real discussion of all Hovind is really guilty of and repeat the criminal thinking behind Hovind's criminal behavior which will only land Kent in more criminal lock-up. It's fascinating in a slow-motion train-wreck watching way, knowing the Hovindicators in their self-imposed ignorance will find yet again that the Hovind lies don't prevail in reality and that it must be the eeevil "Satonic" Jezebels have once more won the day. Thankfully, they'll continue to pay the "stupid" tax for their self-imposed ignorance.
DeleteThis is either Rudy's wife or Theodore, the kid, lol.
DeleteAnother anonymous whiner from the Hovindicator cult who cannot bring himself/herself to commit to the effort to take the invitation to Kent for his official acceptance or rejection so that we might advance the conversation, or not.
ReplyDeleteSee them run!
One of these days, if we ever get to start working down the list of subjects of mutual interest, they may even find a champion to come out, come clean, and allow me to face my accuser(s) and the charges they have proposed against me.
Kent and his people brag about Kent's comedic antics.
Why can't I be "a joke"; I still win!
I think it curious that the anonymous whiner above appears to make reference to the statistical data on my FaceBook page indicating the number of "likes" is down from a high of 381 or 382 to its current 376.
ReplyDeleteThat number seemed to flounder below 100 for the longest time, and then Kent's new problems came up and the number started going up and up and up.
One of the things I have noticed over time is the reluctance Kent's promoters now have to even mention my name, and they have commonly encouraged their folks to stay away from my page and others sites where they might fall prey to an education on the important details of the Hovind case.
Perhaps some of them have recently been found out and/or shamed into removing their "like" from my FaceBook page.
Those speculative unknowns, of course, are what make for a good conspiracy, and so I can opine freely that the Hovindicators are conspiring against me and my FaceBook page. No doubt, they have filed many complaints against my FaceBook page, but I think FaceBook administrators have finally figured out the problem is not with my FaceBook page.
The truth is not determined by the number of "likes" a page has.
For an old man with a keyboard and an obscure FaceBook page I seem to have done OK!
These children of the felon, Kent Hovind have found they can't argue the facts that convict Kent Hovind. So they are reduced to cowardly banning anyone who produces them on their circle-j sites. They can then go on repeating their discredited excuses for Hovind's ongoing incorrigible felonious behavior without the discordance of balancing fact and law. Where they can't do that, they can only smear, hit and run. They betray a spoiled, childish brand of special childish petulant temper tantrums that ought to shame their daddies and mommies...alive or rolling in the great beyond. Kent and Ernie can't hanfle a gair, rational, free and sober debate and they know it. So do most all the churches in Pcola, who want nothing to do with Hovind.
ReplyDeleteHow timely!
ReplyDeleteDan Bidondi has just published his program with Kent at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BYwm0dOqR5M&feature=youtu.be
I thought Dan would have had the decency to invite me back on his show to counter Kent's false narrative, but I didn't get the invitation.
Kent again pushes his false narrative on the structuring issue which makes my invitation all the more timely and relevant.
Come out, come out Kent!
Yes, let's believe you IRS agent... you types never lie!
Deletelol
The Hovindicators "can't stand the truth" and so they try to impeach my credibility with their spurious claims and cowardly course of conduct.
DeleteMy credibility is what so irritates them because it appears in the context of the patently FALSE Hovind Narrative that they are intent on promoting.
That they don't like the truth they might hear from me is not a factor in judging my credibility.
Except Kent repent of his evil, I propose he will never accept my invitation and the truth regarding the legal standard applicable to the structuring issue in his case.
We will see.
Whether Kent repent or not, it's a discussion we need to have!
"Come out, come out Kent!" Quit hiding behind the prison bars as if you have had your freedom taken away from you.
ReplyDeleteAmong all the lies and deception in the Humanist Manifestos there is one statement that is true, and it is this:
"Religion consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. Nothing human is alien to the religious. It includes labor, art, science, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation—all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. The distinction between the sacred and the secular can no longer be maintained."
Keeping in mind that humanism (Evolution at its core) is a religion, let it be said that there is a huge difference between true separation of church and state and phony separation of church and state—it is the difference between freedom and slavery. True separation of church and state produces freedom of speech and freedom of assembly for all religions. If government assures that only one religion’s viewpoint may be expressed (keep in mind that evolution is tax funded), then that religion is the state religion—the government has combined with that religion, and freedom of religion is dead.
Government May Not Prohibit the Free Exercise of Any Religion. (See The First Amendment).
This means that the government may not tax religions, for by taxing them they would be prohibited from doing what they otherwise could afford to do.
This also means that the government may not financially support religions, for whatever the government supports the government of necessity controls.
Well, it's clear the charges against Dr. Kent Hovind are not about personal income tax. His ministries are clearly religious. So, what does the IRS have him in prison for? Taking too small amounts of money out of the bank? Or is it too large amounts of money? Who's money?
Although Kent was running a ministry, it did not purport to be a church. Therefore in order to be an exempt organization it had to apply for that status, which it did not. Ultimately it was determined that the organizations income was attributable to Kent producing a large civil liability. One of the 58 counts was interfering with tax administration which includes steps he took to avoid investigation of his own individual taxes.
DeleteIronically Hovind could have legitimately avoided most of these problems, but he appears to believe that since he had a mission from God he did not have to obey any civil rules including getting building permits. The establishment clause and the free exercise clause create a tension, since taking free exercise to the extreme you can avoid all legal obligations by declaring what you are doing is religious.
DeletePeter,
DeleteHave you noticed that the False Hovind Narrative has changed over the last few months?
Kent used to admit he was not operating his business as a church and claimed it was a ministry.
More often now he and his Hovindicators are trying to claim it was a church and they seem to think that invoking that label makes it a church for tax purposes and Kent gets a free pass on all charges.
Shame on them!
I think the reason for that is they want to play on the fact that a church does not need to ask for an official exemption under 501(c)(3) while a ministry does.
But, again, claiming the label of church or ministry does not make a business a church or ministry for tax purposes!
In the eyes of the law, the only thing Kent was operating was a business.
Hovind pretends to be on the fringe in this undated tape but he's in deep Sov Cit land. Reclaiming your "Straw Man", etc.
Deletehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V1ywMntm468
The First Amendment
ReplyDeleteThe First Amendment makes it possible for people of different religions to live together in peace. Its purpose is to assure absolute freedom of religion for people of all religions. The forty-five vital words all Americans must under- stand if they want their children to inherit freedom are:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.
The First Amendment is like a coin—it has to sides—, but the two side are inseparable. You cannot have one side without having the other. The two sides or aspects of this freedom-giving amendment are:
Government May Not Establish Any Religion
The government has no authority to determine which religion or church is the true religion or church. The government is forbidden to pass laws that establish one church or religion as the state church or religion. The government may not financially support any religion. A church or religion may not become the civil government; for then it would have armed soldiers at its command to force its beliefs upon people against their will.
(Dr. Kent Hovind won big time in debates against evolution, the tax funded religion. Now he is in prison.)
Government May Not Prohibit the Free Exercise of Any Religion.
This means that the government may not tax religions, for by taxing them they would be prohibited from doing what they otherwise could afford to do.
This also means that the government may not financially support religions, for whatever the government supports the government of necessity controls.
The first amendment does not guarantee "absolute freedom of religion" any more than other rights are absolute.
DeleteAnd one cannot invoke "religion" as a cover for their unseemly conduct in society and expect a free pass like Kent Hovind has been trying to do.
There is no constitutional prohibition against taxing religions.
The reason the humanist trolls (in general) want a Christian like Dr. Kent Hovind to be imprisoned or, executed as some have stated he should be, is because he uses the Bible as a light to expose error and because humanists oppose both free speech and freedom of religion (Life sentence for mailing a letter? Really?). Humanists know their lies cannot stand up under open debate (Dr. Hovind embarrasses them in debates and to refuse to debate reveals their fear of the truth. So, they run and/or they try to lock him away forever). That is why they don’t want creationists to be allowed freedom to challenge their evolution lies in public school classrooms. And this is why they rejoice to see Dr. Kent Hovind in prison and rejoice again at the prospect of him potentially being in prison for the rest of his life.
ReplyDeleteAs a child I used to wonder why Christians were hated with such passion even though Jesus said,
"Ye have heard that it hath been said, Thou shalt love thy neighbour, and hate thine enemy. But I say unto you, Love your enemies, bless them that curse you, do good to them that hate you, and pray for them which despitefully use you, and persecute you..." (Hard to believe, Dr. Hovind was charged with threatening an IRS agent because he "prayed" for him).
However, Jesus also answered my question in a different place when he said,
"And this is the condemnation, that light is come into the world, and men loved darkness rather than light, because their deeds were evil. 20 For every one that doeth evil hateth the light, neither cometh to the light, lest his deeds should be reproved."
Christians are (or at least should be) light to the world. If you "let your light shine" you will be hated too, by these same people that hate Dr. Kent Hovind. If these people succeeded in keeping Dr. Kent Hovind in prison they will be emboldened to do the same to many more God fearing leaders. Congress should be ashamed for allowing this to happen.
There are numerous creationist ministries including the one run by Kent's son Eric that operate in compliance with the tax laws and are allowed to freely preach their theories. The government may be coming down to hard on Kent Hovind, but it really is about the taxes not the dinosaurs.
DeleteIs "anonymous" complaining that some may think Kent has done deeds worthy of death.
DeleteHovindicators are Hypocrites!
Rudy Davis, one of the chief Hovindicators, has consistently and persistently called for the death of our President and indicated that he, himself, is willing to execute our President.
Kent has done deeds quite worthy of the punishment being meted out to him and he needs to repent and be more like the Apostle Paul who said he was willing to suffer for his crimes, even to death, if he had done deeds worthy of death.
Kent has yet to accept personal responsibility for his criminal conduct that extended way beyond what he has been called to account for.
And while it is not criminal, one of Kent's most offensive offenses is the sending of his wife to prison when he could have prevented it.
There's been no life sentence, no calls for execution. Those are lies. And the fact is that the Hovindicators have absolutely galloped away from open debate on their web sites. It just grieves them no end that the ugly truth about Kent's ongoing criminal behavior, criminal thinking, can't be similarly suppressed.
DeleteNote that Jo's sentencing hearing has never been released. Is that because it's all about Kent to Mr. Hovind? Hmmm?
@ PlutoDog,
DeleteI think the reason Jo's sentencing hearing transcript was never released is because no one ever had occasion to request a transcript and so none was ever made (unless there was a private request that has not been made public).
Maybe someone will track down the court reporter who may have the information and obtain a transcript, or maybe one might mysteriously appear. Where is "WikiLeaks" when you need them!
I like how Peter and others have coined the term "echo chamber" to describe the environment in which the Hovinvicators have been operating.
My invitation involves a fairly simple, yet profound and fundamental matter which is key to understanding Kent's legal problems, and yet I have yet to be able to get Kent or his champion to come out to me and produce that most important exchange.
Kent, come out, or send your champion!
We can do this!
It's always been about Kent. Jo has, IMHO, been an afterthought.
DeleteRobert -- I understand Jo appealed just as Kent did. Transcript would be part of what any decent atty would want going into that process, as I understand it.
Delete@PlutoDog,
DeleteWell, if you are going to qualify it by requiring a "decent attorney" I guess that explains it.
She didn't have a decent attorney.
I just did some brief review and found indications that Jo did file a "notice of appeal" but I found no 11th Circuit appeals case under her name; so I am figuring that she never actually filed the appeal with the 11th Circuit and, all things considered, Kent might have figured his appeal was good enough for the both of them.
That might explain also why there is no known transcript of Jo's sentencing hearing; Jen Fishburne's contemporaneous report possibly being the best report of what happened.
I'm still waiting to see if Jen is going to be providing further insight into what she recalls about the details of that as well as Kent's sentencing and whatever other insight she might provide into the Hovind case.
Alas, the logistics have not been very good. Any other time and we might have heard more from Jen, but she's on a mid-life great adventure which started just before the recent trial and may run awhile longer. Maybe when her life settles back down we will hear more form her about these things.
Dan Bidondi is just out to make a buck, but it's the True Believers - like Rudy Davis and the other 'Hovindicators' - who are the interesting ones in this struggle. You've done an excellent job of presenting the facts of the case, Peter. Hovind could have avoided all his legal troubles by following the rules for a tax-exempt religious organization, but he chose to stand by the, in the view of myself and many others, crazy sovereign citizen ideas. Though he is rather over-zealous, I've also appreciated the coverage by Mr. Baty (and his sidekick Dee). It was fascinating to follow the coverage of the recent trial, and I was in no way surprised to see Hovind convicted of contempt for his continued efforts to thwart the legal seizure of his property. He's already blown the possibility of early release for his original crimes. I'm looking forward with continued amazement to the upcoming retrial, and to your continued reporting. Thank you!
ReplyDeleteThis is not all that complicated. The IRS is used as the SS/KGB gestapo force to discipline or silence anyone who crosses or opposes those in higher power. If not the case, then answer this, why did Bill Clinton pardon Marc Rich? (Helps to contribute millions to someones campaign!) How can you pardon someone who owes 10 of millions (if not 100's of millions) in taxes? Tax cheat Tim Geithner becomes Secretary of the Treasury? HaHa! Must be good to work for the inside boys! (Goldman Sucks) Al Sharpton owes a few dollars, doesn't he? You guys are HUGE hypocrites!
ReplyDeleteYou might think we are just a bunch of Bible toting, gun slinging, hillbilly's but Kent was definitely targeted! Your prez just released a bunch of drug criminals for goodness sakes! http://www.breitbart.com/big-government/2015/03/31/president-obama-commutes-22-drug-offenders-sentences-good-luck-and-godspeed/ I guess you also think it makes a lot of sense to spend over $1,000,000 of government money to prosecute and jail someone who owes maybe $100,000. Hummm
To frame the matter in those terms, Kent was indeed targeted, investigated, charged, prosecuted, tried, found guilty, and sentenced for only a few of his decades long activity as a sovcit, tax-cheatin' Baptist preacher.
DeleteKent has gotten off light in the context of his life-long adult criminal activities.
As far as I can tell, no one has yet appeared to claim they will take the invitation to Kent and try to get him to broadcast his acceptance or rejectance so that we might actually have an open, honest, reasonable and reasoned discussion on what Kent himself considers an issue fundamental to understanding his legal problems.
Kent Hovind, come out, or send your champion.
Let's get this done and really bring some light on you and you Hovindicators and the legal standard involving structuring that is applicable to your case.
"This is not all that complicated!"
P.S. If Kent wants a presidential pardon I recommend that, instead of whining about and calling state governors and such, he follow the rules and make an appropriate request. Alas, Kent, so far, as vowed to take a course whereby he will never qualify for a president pardon. Poor Kent, looks like he may never be able to legally buy another gun.
The fact is that Kent Hovind has in the past found other suckers to buy into, support his criminal thinking/behavior. As he burns them out, he finds others, who are willing to listen to his siren song and use them up as well. It will cost them in time, heart, trust in humanity and of course, their own money. It's the stupid tax which Kent won't be paying for them, either.
DeleteIT IS ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT (PART 1)
ReplyDelete"The government may be coming down to hard on Kent Hovind, but it really is about the taxes not the dinosaurs."
No, it’s not about the dinosaurs. Yes, it is about the taxes being used to suppress freedom of religion. So what if Dr. Kent Hovind’s ministry was a “church” or not? Is there any question that it was a religious institution? So what if the IRS is leaving other “churches” or religious institutions such as Eric Hovind’s creation ministry alone? All that proves is selectivity.
Rather than quoting the first amendment again, please look it up and read it carefully. The word “church” is no where to be found in it.
There is one truth that Humanists seem to see much clearer than Christians, and that is that there is no aspect of life that is not religious. Everything, including mathematics and science, and especially the social sciences, has religious significance. Among all the lies and deception in the Humanist Manifestos there is one statement that is true, and it is this:
"RELIGION consists of those actions, purposes, and experiences which are humanly significant. NOTHING HUMAN IS ALIAN TO THE RELIGIOUS. It includes labor, art, SCIENCE, philosophy, love, friendship, recreation—all that is in its degree expressive of intelligently satisfying human living. THE DISTINCTION BETWEEN THE SACRED AND THE SECULAR CAN NO LONGER BE MAINTAINED." Kurtz,Humanist Manifestos I&II,9. [Emphasis added.]
Everything is religious. Math is religious. Science is religious. Philosophy is religious. Secular humanism is religious. Secular humanism and religious humanism are the same. Secular simply means that the humanist religion excludes God. Secular humanism is a religion, and that is all it is. It is a very wicked, evil, political, anti-God religion, but just a religion nevertheless.
Separation of church and state is another truth that humanists leaders understand better than most theists. This is not to say that humanists respect the First Amendment, for they don’t.
[Quote]
"Robert Baty March 31, 2015 at 7:23 PM
The first amendment does not guarantee "absolute freedom of religion" any more than other rights are absolute.
And one cannot invoke "religion" as a cover for their unseemly conduct in society and expect a free pass like Kent Hovind has been trying to do.
There is no constitutional prohibition against taxing religions."
[End Quote]
But they know how to use it against Christians. Humanists are the most dangerous when Christians compromise the teachings of God’s Word and take the side of wrong (i.e. advocating the use of tax dollars to teach their brand of religion, this is why Dr. Kent Hovind has asked the question in some of his videos “should there even be a public school?”), thereby allowing atheists to take the side of right (freedom of speech and freedom of religion) against them. That really makes Christianity look bad. And that is the sad case concerning separation of church and state.
Keeping in mind that humanism is a religion, let it be said that there is a huge difference between true separation of church and state and phony separation of church and state.
Humanists advocate a phony separation of church and state which denies freedom of speech to all religions except their own. They have defined the word “church” in separation of church and state to include only churches that worship God. They exclude from their definition pagan churches such as the Unitarian-Universalist Church and the Humanist Ethical Unions and other humanist churches (no matter what their names) which worship man instead of God.
Kurtz spreads the term, 'religion' so thin as to make it meaningless. And Anonymous, above runs with it. Not surprisingly the result is nonsense, babble.
DeleteIT IS ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT (PART 2)
ReplyDeleteAn important fact that needs to be pointed out is that not all “churches” or “religions” are the same. Some churches believe that God is a Trinity; others deny this. Some believe that Jesus is both God and the Son of God; others deny this. Some believe that Heaven and Hell are literal places; others deny this. Some believe that Jesus is the sinless, virgin-born Savior; others deny this. Some believe that Jesus died on the cross for our sins; others deny this. Some believe Jesus literally arose bodily from the grave after three days and three nights; others deny this. Some believe that salvation is by grace through faith, not of works; others believe that it is by works. Some believe that baptism is only for believers, and must be by immersion; others believe that baptism is also for babies, and that sprinkling is sufficient. Some believe that the main day of worship is Sunday; others say it should be Saturday. So, clearly, what Christians value and believe are to be taught to the world is a subject of great disagreement. This is another reason that freedom of speech is so important: among all these different interpretations, there is the correct interpretation. Now most people of all these contradictory religions sincerely believe that their beliefs are correct. Therefore, it is obviously possible to be sincerely wrong. Therefore, no religion should be allowed to prevent people of other religions from exercising free speech. Let the issues be freely debated by all the religions with no fear of violence, and the truth will be presented to everyone. Of course, some will still reject the truth, but the truth will still be presented to the public so that people at least have opportunity to receive it.
When a state religion is allowed (Evolution), that religion will always push the others out, and will rule. That, by the way, is the case today—the Humanist religion (Evolution) rules. Is this not why Dr. Kent Hovind is in prison?
As in the days of our forefathers, there is only one thing that can unite theists in this country (Whether you are Baptist, Catholic, Protestant, Muslim, Buddhist, etc…) so that we can cast off our Humanist oppressors, and that is to return to the spirit of the First Amendment—absolute freedom of religion for EVERYONE. Our only choices are these two: (1) we can unite around the First Amendment; or (2) we can remain divided by advocating the use of tax dollars to fund our religion in violation of the First Amendment, in which case we may as well resign ourselves to Humanists and their vile religious and political views
It is important to know and accept the fact that there have always been and always will be people advocating their religion as the state religion. Communism is the state religion of China, Russia, Korea, and Cuba. To make Islam the state religion of the world is the goal of Islamic jihad. To become the state religion is also the goal of many church groups that claim to be Christian. While it is true that most of America’s forefathers belonged to some form of Christian church, it is not true that all of the founders of this country were wise and spiritual men who wanted freedom of religion. In their days, there was a clash of cultures and beliefs between the different church groups and also between the church groups and atheists and deists, just as there is now.
THE FACT THAT MUST BE FOCUSED ON IS THAT THE HUMANIST CHURCH (EVOLUTION) IS NOT SEPARATE FROM THE STATE, BUT HAS INSTEAD BEEN COMBINED WITH THE STATE AND ESTABLISHED AS THE STATE CHURCH BY FUNDING THEIR RELIGION THROUGH TAXATION.
So, I ask about Dr. Kent Hovind again... It's clear the charges against Dr. Kent Hovind are not about personal income tax. His ministries are clearly religious (not a for profit business… his material was not even copyrighted). He is not accused of receiving taxes to fund his religion. So, what does the IRS have him in prison for? Structuring? Taking too small amounts of money out of the bank? Or is it too large amounts of money? Who's money?
Kent's "extensive criminal enterprise" included a long history of evading employment tax and personal income taxes; the evasion of which effectively gave him more money to buy things for him and his family's comfort and enjoyment.
DeleteThat his business had a religious characteristic is not enough to entitle it to special tax privileges.
It was quite profitable!
Kent was grossing over a million dollars a year for years according to reports and was married, raised his kids and had many nice things.
Kent is currently in prison for evading employment taxes, structuring, and obstruction. He's still there because he would never accept responsibility and was even willing to send his wife to prison as well. It didn't have to be that way.
And for those who haven't figured out the law applicable to Kent's case, here a proposition for you which I am affirming is the correct way of understanding what Kent's structuring problem was.
Robert Baty’s Structuring Proposal 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
Kent Hovind - Deny
Will Kent come out to me?
Will Kent send his champion out to me?
Will Kent repent and simply join with me in affirming the proposition?
Again, claiming Kent's prosecution and criminal punishment are about his religion, his preachifying is nonsense. Which is why it is going nowhere...again.
DeleteStatus as a church is the most enviable tax status because it means exemption from even having to apply for exempt status. There are 14 factors that are considered in whether an organization is a church. Theism is not one of them. Non church ministries like other charities have to apply for exempt status.
ReplyDeleteIt is a complex area. Professor Edward Zelinsky has written
Exempting religious institutions from taxation inevitably creates tensions at the borderlines of exemption, as courts and tax collectors must decide what is and is not religious. But taxing religious institutions also inevitably entangles as the relationship between tax collectors and the taxed intertwines them as well.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2013/04/14/taxing-the-third-space/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2013/10/01/should-humanist-groups-seek-church-status/
http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreilly/2014/05/22/american-atheists-denied-standing-to-challenge-church-tax-breaks/
A review of case law establishes that the words “church,” “religious organization,” and “minister,” do not necessarily require a theistic or deity-centered meaning.
Retired IRS Kent Hovind Critic Disregards First Amendment To Defend Structuring While Taunting Dr. Kent Hovind To “Come Out To Me"
ReplyDeleteRobert Baty likens himslef to the Philistine's Galiath:
"And the Philistine said, I defy the armies of Israel this day; give me a man, that we may fight together.”
"Will Kent come out to me? Will Kent send his champion out to me?” Says, Robert Baty April 1, 2015 at 2:06 PM
Although Galiath felt he was much bigger and more powerful than anyone else he was at least taunting free men, not a man behind bars. Robert Baty repeatedly asks for Dr. Kent Hovind or a “champion” (he’s looking for a Galiath. lol) but all he will get are little, poor, and lowly, Davids.
It is CLEAR the charges against Dr. Kent Hovind are not about personal income tax (The IRS stole ministry money and ministry property). His ministries are clearly religious (not a for profit business… his material was not even copyrighted). He is not accused of receiving taxes to fund his religion. So, what does the IRS have him in prison for? Structuring? Taking too small amounts of money out of the bank? Or is it too large amounts of money? Who's money? The truthful answers to these questions are an embarrassment to the IRS defenders.
The IRS defenders can only justify what is happening to Dr. Kent Hovind by disregarding the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The answers they give only make it more clear that the IRS has become a criminal enterprise—a rogue agency that abuses its power by harassing groups for political reasons. The U.S. Constitution is being spit upon by the far left and more Americans will lose freedom as a result. It is time to FREE KENT HOVIND and end the IRS. IT’S ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT: FREEDOME OF SPEECH. FREEDOM OF RELIGION.
In the civil tax litigation the Tax Court ended up ruling that the income was taxable to Hovind. I think it was a serious error on his part and the source of most of his troubles to not operate as a conventional not for profit.
DeleteThe First Amendment (Amendment I) to the United States Constitution PROHIBITS THE MAKING OF ANY LAW (structuring, for example) respecting an establishment of religion, IMPEDING the free exercise of religion, ABRIDGING the freedom of speech, INFRINGING on the freedom of the press, INTERFERING with the right to peaceably assemble or PROHIBITING the PETITIONING for a governmental redress of grievances.
DeleteThe way in which the IRS is using structuring laws and the tactics they are using to keep Dr. Kent Hovind in prison is unconstitutional. It's immoral. It's wrong.
I'll say again, It is CLEAR the charges against Dr. Kent Hovind are not about personal income tax (I know the IRS defenders say it is but the charges say otherwise. The IRS stole ministry money and ministry property). His ministries are clearly religious (not a for profit business… his material was not even copyrighted). He is not accused of receiving taxes to fund his religion. So, what does the IRS have him in prison for? Structuring? Taking too small amounts of money out of the bank? Or is it too large amounts of money? Who's money? The truthful answers to these questions are an embarrassment to the IRS defenders.
The IRS defenders can only justify what is happening to Dr. Kent Hovind by disregarding the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. The answers they give only make it more clear that the IRS has become a criminal enterprise—a rogue agency that abuses its power by harassing groups for political reasons. The U.S. Constitution is being spit upon by the far left and more Americans will lose freedom as a result. It is time to FREE KENT HOVIND and end the IRS. IT’S ABOUT THE FIRST AMENDMENT: FREEDOME OF SPEECH. FREEDOM OF RELIGION.
He was also convicted of interfering with the administration of the taxes laws and failing to file payroll returns on the ministry employees. The First Amendment does not create a blanket exemption form all laws for an organization claiming to be religious - that would violate the establishment clause. An organization other than a church has to apply for exempt status and do informational filings. The First Amendment does create an immunity zone of some sort.
DeleteI'm not interested in accusations. I'm only interested in what he was convicted of. It is my understanding that none of the convictions are for personal income tax. What exactly are the charges of which he was convicted of and how many years must he serve for each charge? Can you give me this list? Maybe this will clear some things up for me.
DeleteHow long will the IRS defenders continue to act as if using structuring laws to steal money is ok?
Interesting YouTube clip:
Sen. Ted Cruz Questions Eric Holder on the Investigation into IRS Targeting of Conservatives
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YXnzZzLyCnQ
They do not seem to be all that interested in actually coming to know what structuring charges Kent was found guilty of.
DeleteThey seem to think they know, and so they have it as part of the FALSE Hovind Narrative being promoted and they have yet to get Kent to accept my invitation, reject it, or join with me in affirming the proposition which clearly sets forth the legal standard applicable in Kent's structuring case.
Robert Baty’s Structuring Proposal 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
Kent Hovind - Deny
It's as if they really "can't handle the truth".
It's quite simple, as is reflected in my proposition which I think is easily demonstrated as being the case.
As for the "Goliath" analogy, the main point is that I have called out to Kent and his Philistines, and they have yet to find a man to come out to me.
I earlier warned of carrying the analogy too far. In this case, I ("Goliath") am the man of God and there is no "David" to defeat me (my proposition).
If you think otherwise, I wait for Kent or his champion to come out to me and to slay me (my proposition).
As for Kent's 10 years, as I recall, the sentence went something like this:
Charges 1-56 : 5 years. (structuring and employment taxes)
Charge 57 - 5 years. (structuring)
Charge 58 - 3 years (concurrent/obstruction).
Could have been a lot worse.
Could have been less.
Kent got what he bargained for and even sent his wife to prison.
You start with the presupposition that Kent was convicted of preaching the gospel. And then you ask for and ignore all evidence to the contrary. That includes civil findings of responsibility for not paying his own personal income taxes and a big tax and penalty liability that he's not going to be able to crawl out from under. And you will subsequently be continually surprised and outraged when Kent keeps getting convicted of actual felonious actions that are only peripheral to his preaching of the gospel. You will blame this all on "Satonic" demons and reality will continue to escape you.
DeleteHere is the 58 count indictment https://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_of_America_v_Kent_Hovind_and_Jo_Hovind
ReplyDeleteCount 58 was corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the due administration of the internal revenue laws and that activity is related to his personal liability which the Tax Court found him civilly liable for
The way the federal sentencing guidelines work is somewhat complicated. The charges are grouped and a level determined. There is a manual online that explains . It is possible that if the structuring charges were tossed out the guidelines would not come up with a much longer sentence. Theoretically the judge could have given him a much longer sentence but she would have had to justify going outside the guideline.
It is not a simple matter of adding up the statutory maximum on each of the counts.
Nothing about it is simple when the First Amendment is disregarded.
DeleteIt appears to me, putting it simply, that the IRS raped (figuratively speaking) Dr. Kent Hovind and then charged him with "endeavoring to obstruct and impede the due administration of the internal revenue laws" when he defended himself.
"According to the CCH Standard Federal Tax Reporter, as of 2013, it now takes 73,954 regular 8-1/2" x 11" sheets of paper to explain the complexity of the U.S. federal tax code! Feb 17, 2013" (Google it).
In comparison, to give you an idea of how big that is, a large print Bible:
1,280 pages, 5.5” x 8.5” x 1.4”
10 point Bible text, 2 column format
It's time to end the IRS.
www.fairtax.org
The First Amendment has not been disregarded in Kent's case, though one can certainly understand the opinion being proposed by Hovindicators.
DeleteIt's a common cultural thing to do.
I do it myself.
I opine that IRC 107 is UNconstitutional.
However, under our "rule of law", legislation is considered constitutional, presumptively, until it is determined otherwise.
So, it is important to understand when talking to Kent and his people that, while they can opine all they want, they are not the ones who decides what is "the law", or what is "constitutional", and a lot of other matters relevant to Kent's legal problems.
Kent and his people can whine and moan and complain all they want about structuring and falsely represent what the law is on structuring as applied to the Hovind case.
However, they don't get to decide what the law is as applicable to the Hovind case.
The charges against Kent, the prosecution of Kent, and the conviction of Kent were all consistent with my simple representation of the structuring law applicable to Kent's case; no matter how many times Kent and his people make false claims about the law on structuring as applied to Kent's case.
Will Kent or his champion come out to me?
It does not appear likely, but my invitation will remain outstanding.
Robert Baty’s Structuring Proposal 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
Kent Hovind - Deny
The anonymous whiner also wrote, in part:
Delete- "It appears to me, putting it simply, that the IRS
- raped (figuratively speaking) Dr. Kent Hovind and
- then charged him with 'endeavoring to obstruct
- and impede the due administration of the internal
- revenue laws' when he defended himself."
You know what they say about opinions!
Everyone has one!
The above however is reflective of what an uninformed or incredibly biased opinion looks like.
Kent Hovind's actions which the whiner calls "defending himself" were not such actions as are done in defense but, in large part, reflect Kent's admitted offensive efforts to harass his prosecutors and investigators and IRS administrative personnel.
It's hard to see how anyone serious about taking up that issue could read the trial transcript and find otherwise. The jury was convinced beyond a reasonable doubt and they are the ones "we the people" trusted to make that decision for us.
Kent had a chance to put on a bonafide defense in his 2006 trial, and he would not. And the reason for that is not such as Kent and his people commonly suggest (and that is my opinion based on my review of the case).
As I noted earlier, for all the fussing about the obstruction charge, the 3 years sentence for that was to run concurrent with the other 10 year sentence.
DeleteSo, it looks like the obstruction charge didn't actually add anything to Kent's sentence.
Adults take responsibility for their behavior, "man up" to the facts, make restitution, and go forth vowing to "sin" no more. Kent Hovind is only physically an adult. And his co-dependent followers are sucked into that same cesspool of insanity.
DeleteIt is worth noting that Bush was President while Hovind was being investigated and prosecuted and that Judge Rodgers was appointed by Bush.
ReplyDeleteAgreed. Point taken. Do not vote for another Bush.
DeleteYep...everybody's against the poor, persecuted Hovind and the poor persecuted, brave defending blinder-loving Hovindicators. None so blind as those who will not see, or so they say...
DeleteBush ...
DeleteYep ... This ESPLAINS A LOT since El Bush is Espanial (at least that what his voter regestration
Peter Reilly, Robert "mentally ill ex-IRS employee" Baty, Dee Holmes, Pluto the Dog are all a bunch of extremists who are angry that AMERICA was founded on CHRISTIANITY AND THE BIBLE
ReplyDeleteYou can't run away from it... I suggest you go to a communist run country where you can act like tyrants all you want - I will help you pack your bags and pay for the plane ticket.... Better yet, go to Rome.... the Vatican would enjoy your gestapo/Hegelian dialectic/fake christian g-d complex
I think some who know more about such things than I typically describe part of what the anonymous whiner said as "projection".
DeleteThat is, accusing me of being mentally ill and me and others of being extremists when it is Kent who is the subject of concern and may have undiagnosed mental issues that should be of concern and relevant to understanding his antics and extremism.
I think it also rather enlightening to see the various and sundry extremists who are rallying to support Kent in the promotion of themselves and their causes.
They certainly don't give any serious indication that they want to actually help Kent resolve his legal problems.
we all know the REAL reason Pastor Hovind is in jail is because of this perfectly recorded lesson in history.~ And that he is smarter than all the ignorant people on this page put together! #FreeKent https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ATSYYaPWc3g
ReplyDeleteHow smart does one have to be to get oneself 10 years in an American jail?
Delete