The Baby Holm case seems to have taken a hold on Hovindologists. I have followed it pretty lightly. It is not a tax case which at however a removed level is the proper subject of this blog. A recent post by Danielle Holm that she asks to be circulated really intrigues me, though. It strikes me that the Holms are coming from a space that is quite different from the likes of Hovind and his merry band.
Danielle's piece is rather long and I feel the necessity of a bit of background for readers who may be entirely new to all these matters, so there may be some things you can skip.
Kent Hovind is an independent Baptist minister. He holds the Young Earth Creationist view - a hyper literal reading of the Book of Genesis which when you are done summing up all those begats and tacking on seven days implies the world is about 6,000 years ago.
Hovind argues that there is scientific support for the YEC view and ran a theme park of sorts that focused on the implication in YEC that humans and dinosaurs coexisted. After a long prison sentence on tax related charges he is opening Dinosaur Adventure Land in Lenox, AL.
Doctor Dino, as he calls himself, seems to have never encountered a conspiracy theory he didn't like at least a little. YEC requires the existence of a pretty vast conspiracy, since it flies in the face of "establishment science" in many areas most notably in denying evolution, but the cosmologists, physicists, geologists and astronomers will also have issues with it.
Hovind's tax troubles are rooted in another conspiracy theory which traces back to Irwin Schiff and others who argue that the income tax is actually very narrow in its application. Hovind weaves in a lot more than that. If you have three hours to spare you can check out The Dangers of Evolution, which is as close as you will get to tying it all together.
Hovindologist is a term I have coined to describe the odd group of people who find Hovind both fascinating and appalling. This distinguishes them from Hovind's fairly rabid supporters whom I dubbed Hovindicators.
In 2014-2015, Hovind faced a new set of charges as he was nearing release on his 2006 conviction. He became a figure in the right wing conspiracy bubble, making it all the way to Alex Jones, but never making the leap to Fox, much to my chagrin, as I might have made some money if that had happened.
At any rate, first among Hovondoligists is retired IRS appeals officer, Robert Baty, who runs a Hovind dedicated Facebook site. His focus tends to be on Hovind's "false legal narrative". Hovind continue to maintain his innocence on the original charges that he served time for and people believe him.
The Baby Holm Case
The bare bones version of the Baby Holm case is that Christian and Danielle Holm were living off-the-grid. Danielle was pregnant and when it came time to give birth in October 2016, they decided to go a hospital The Alabama Department of Human Resources took the child on the basis that the Holm's could not care for him properly. This US District Court decision in December 2016 is a handy summary.
The Hovind Holm Connection
Christian and Danielle found themselves receiving encouragement from some Hovind supporters, most notably Brady Byrum. Brady Byrum is an autodidact legal researcher. in the tradition of Irwin Schiff who is responsible for the latest Hovindication effort.
It is a little murky, but based on Robert Baty's research it appears that Brady Byrum also offered his legal assistance to the Holms.
So now Christian and Danielle besides being blessed or cursed with the support of some Hovindicators find themselves under the scrutiny of Hovindoligist in chief Robert Baty, who has another facebook site that he dedicates to them.
The Sovereign Citizen Connection
Connecting Kent Hovind to the Sovereign Citizen movement is a reasonable step. In the United States anyway, the sovereign citizens tend to accept some sort of historical legitimacy of the United States and have some point where it went wrong. Hovind, who is not really that systematic a thinker, will apparently support numerous versions.
A classic sovereign narrative though is that it was all good until - the fourteenth amendment, the federal reserve, going off the gold standard, the sixteenth amendment, whatever. From there they can create a parallel legal system that runs the way they think it should - Paul John Hansen's "court of record" is an example. Ed Brown styles himself a "constitutional ranger".
The Holms Are Different
The reason I am reproducing Danielle's statement is that it convinces me that Christian and Danielle are coming from an entirely different space. To the extent that you can legitimately place people with fringe views on a left/right continuum, they strike me as much more left than right. Their Hovind connection appears to be one of those random things that crop up from time to time. With that said here is Danielle's statement. Any emphasis have been added by me.
Danielle Holm Statement
I still truly do not know what self-proclaimed "sovereign citizens" believe in. We have been called that by those trying to oppose us, but we have never considered ourselves that, nor did we even know what that was until after our baby was kidnapped and people started flocking to us, telling us they could help us, etc...Being in a vulnerable position after having our baby kidnapped, and never being involved with law or courtrooms EVER, we were at first accepting of what we thought was "love" of others wanting to help us. Some of them had the tactics of sovereign citizens. We did not know this at the time. We were simply learning all while having the pressure of our baby being held, hostage. Some of these people may truly have been trying to help, while others may have been trying to hurt. We may never know. We do not judge anyone, and we love all. However, if anyone has told anyone, that we are "sovereign citizens", and think we are better than anyone, you are being lied to. Again, we have nothing against ANYONE, no matter what they want to call themselves, and we do not even 100% know what this term means all the way, however we do know they stand for the artificial system, still with possessions, technology and devices, while we simply just want to live in Creation free of all of that. There is a major difference. We realized throughout this entire process, that NONE of that matters, and that the only thing that matters is SERVING LIFE within CREATION and NEVER breaking the ULTIMATE law which is LOVE/DO NO HARM. This is why we are NOT "sovereign citizens". They are fighting laws within the system. We do not wish to fight at all. About laws or anything. We simply just stand for creation and not destroying life.
However, what I can say is that we do not classify ourselves in ANY group. ANY "movement" or any herd at all. This is why we stay away from religion, politics, and anything else that forces one to "choose a side". We do not choose sides. We love all. It is literally THIS SIMPLE. We wish to LOVE all of CREATION. Done. That's it. It cannot be explained more than that. We do not have one specific belief over another, within the system of lies.
We do not feel one way is better than another way in the system of lies. We feel the entire system is a system of lies, and we feel if those people have the free will, to be WITHIN the system of lies, who are we to judge? We are not here to judge. We are not here to condemn. We are not here to take away the addictions of others and/or possessions, technology or devices. We are simply here to live our lives, speaking what we feel to be true, and allowing free will for others to decide what they want in their lives. All we are asking, is why do WE not have the free will if we so choose, to return to a more sustainable way of life, flowing within creation, flowing with the organic ground, growing our foods, near clean water, building our own tiny little shelter, and living our lives back to basics without the need for profit? Why can we not, go back to this way, without being labelled as a "sovereign citizen" or even a "danger to society" or a "terrorist?" We have not harmed anyone. We have not thought about harming anyone. We never would harm anyone. It literally could not be more simple. We just want to love all of creation and serve and protect life. We simply want to LIVE and LOVE without harming anything or anyone. Why is this impossible? In other words, why do those of you who oppose us, MAKE this impossible? Because on such a large planet, full of land and water, this SHOULDN'T be impossible. It is that the people who choose to remain in their way of life, are ON PURPOSE making it impossible for us, all while trapping us, and stripping away OUR free will.
Laws in general are for possessions. Laws are for those who wish to live within the artificial way of life, with technology, devices and possessions. We do NOT wish to live in this. We are trapped right now because everyone else is enslaved in this mentality. We dropped the technology when we were travelling and walking. We did not need it other than a simple phone for emergency because of HAVING to be forced back into the system of lies for absolute needs because there is nowhere to go, because people do not allow it because of their own desires for selfishness and greed. We dropped the artificial almost all the way. We only got pulled back in, because our baby was stolen for us wanting to live simply, and show people a way back to Creation. The people who defend those who trap us, set up a trap, when you walk away from the trap, they then invade your life, force you back in the trap, and then call you a hypocrite for being in the trap, they are forcing you into! how is this love? How is this FREE WILL? They trap you, and when they don't allow you to leave the trap, they call YOU a hypocrite for still being in the TRAP!! All while holding your own created organic being, that you created with LOVE hostage as leverage for staying IN the TRAP!
Where is the free will? Why are we not free to simply be within creation growing foods, getting clean water from streams, rivers, creeks, a well, like they used to? making our own clothes by hand? Washing and drying clothes by hand? Building our own shelter by hand? Living self sustainably? Why is this seen as crazy now? Just because man and woman have created technology means that we MUST be a part of that? Laws exist because they need to govern the possession way of life. What about those of us, who are mature enough to flow within creation and simply want to live that way of life? The only law in creation is to love one another and do no harm. We are mature enough to do that. So, this simply becomes a group of people forcing us into their religion, into their way of life, and stealing our child and using him as leverage for their purposes. It is nothing more than this. If not, why can't we simply just LIVE in Creation, in a tiny little home, like the olden days, with our baby boy? Why is this FREE WILL NOT allowed? Because of other people's addictions? So, our baby suffers without his father and mother because people are addicted to possessions?
How is this love? Where is the free will? Where is the place for those of us to go, who do not need to rely on the system of lies for our needs? Where is this place where we can be free, and safe from harm, and protect and love one another without the need of profit if one so chooses? Why is PROFIT mandatory in a world where we are supposed to have free will? How are we FREE if we MUST be a slave to survive and eat and drink water? Where is the place for us to be able to go once we decide and awaken and realize we have the free will to CHOOSE to pay for our food and water, or truly serve creation by tilling the earth and growing foods for ourselves and our neighbours? Where is this option for those who supposedly have the free will to do so? Or is there no more free will on this planet? If not, who is taking away our free will when the Creator gives 100% free will at all times? Why are we allowing our free will to be TAKEN from us? For those of you, who insist on taking away OUR free will, how would YOU feel, if we took away YOUR possessions? here is the difference, we wouldn't. Because we believe in true love. And we believe in FREE WILL. Forcing someone into your way, and taking away THINGS of others, is NOT love, let alone their CHILDREN.
People then say, you CAN do that, you just need to make a whole lot of money and continue to pay property/land taxes to do so. This is exactly my point. Why? This Earth is NOT a possession. This is land, the Creator gave us ALL to be FREE to be shepherds and stewards of. We are not asking anyone to lose all of their possessions and addictions that are destroying the planet. We are only asking why cant WE do that? Why does everyone else have free will to be addicted to their false comforts, luxuries, etc...but we do NOT have the free will to return back to creation? How will ANY of us return back to creation, if you do not allow those who WISH to, to do so?
Then they say, " they are lazy. They do not want to do anything." Another lie of those addicted to their way. We are absolutely not lazy. in fact, building your own shelter, growing your own foods, tending to your animals, living without possessions, but MAKING what is needed, learning to heal, naturally and effectively, being a midwife, etc..etc..etc... is HARD work. However, very much worth it when you realize just how much willpower and strength you gain in flowing with creation, rather than against it. We do not lack WILL POWER nor do we lack a WILLINGNESS to SERVE ALL DAY EVERYDAY OUR CREATOR And all of creation. What we LACK is the FREE WILL which has been taken by our brothers and sisters, to go find a place to do this, without having to be a SLAVE of PROFIT. This is what we lack. I say it again. We do NOT lack the WILL. We LACK the FREE WILL to do so. The Creator gave us free will. Man and woman have taken this away from us, and many others who wish to do the same.
End Danielle's statment
The best historic analysis that would fit in with Danielle's view is that put out by Deep Green Resistance. Their answer to where we went wrong is civilization.
- Industrial civilization is killing all life on our planet, driving to extinction 200 species per day, and it won't stop voluntarily.
- Global warming is happening now, at an astounding speed. The only honest solution is to stop industrial civilization from burning fossil fuels.
- Most consumption is based on violence against people (human and non-human) and on degrading landbases across the planet.
- Life on Earth is more important than this insane, temporary culture based on hyper-exploitation of finite resources. This culture needs to be destroyed before it consumes all life on this planet.
- Humanity is not the same as civilization. Humans have developed many sane and sustainable cultures, themselves at risk from civilization.
- Most people know this culture is insane and needs radical change, but don't see any way to bring the change about.
- Unlike most environmental and social justice organizations, Deep Green Resistance questions the existence and necessity of civilization itself. DGR asks "What if we do away with civilization altogether?"
- Unlike most environmental and social justice organizations, DGR asks "What must we do to be effective?", not "What will those in power allow us to do?"
- DGR offers organized, reliable ways to promote sane ways of living and surviving the ongoing crisis.
DGR has a different answer than Danielle - Decisive Ecological Warfare
There is an odd concurrence in views between those who are with Kent Hovind and DGR. The point at with YEC thinks the world began is the point at which DGR thinks it went wrong - civilization.
The other thing you will find in DGR is a strong rejection of patriarchy and an embrace of radical feminism. And Hovindicators are nothing if not patriarchal.
Of course, if we get back into the middle, none of this has anything to do with what is in the best interests of the child. It is tough to know whether the kid is better off wandering around with Danielle and Christian in search of a place where they can safely live a subsistence lifestyle or within the foster care system.
Regardless, they would not be drawn to Kent Hovind's work camp/gulag/amusement park where you can ride three-wheelers and their theology is very much at odds with evangelical Christianity. I think they might have done a little better if they had brushed with the system in an area of the country with more hippies and fewer fundamentalists.
I have issues with their world-view, but they have much more of my sympathy than the Hovindicators.
Peter J Reilly probably should not be spending time on this during tax season, but so it goes.