This post was originally published on Forbes Jul 7, 2015
The narrative of Kent Hovind and his supporters is that the government's charges against him were trumped up, because he has been so effective in opposing the lies of evolution which ties into a host of other conspiracies.
The evidence presented at the hearing paints a clear portrait of a tax protester whose sole purpose in seeking relief under chapter 13 was to obtain the release of property seized by the IRS.
In the face of all of the foregoing, the debtor apparently maintains that as a minister of God everything he owns belongs to God and he is not subject to paying taxes to the United States on the money he receives for doing God's work. While in his correspondence to the IRS he denies being a tax protester, the evidence overwhelmingly establishes otherwise. At the hearing on this motion, debtor's counsel represented to the court that the debtor was now ready to do everything which was required of him to comply with the Bankruptcy Code and the Internal Revenue Code including the filing of tax returns and payment to the trustee in accordance with the plan filed immediately prior to the hearing. However, the debtor himself never took the stand during the hearing to testify to that nor has he ever filed any amended schedules and statement of affairs to reflect his true financial status. Given this debtor's history and the documentary evidence presented, I cannot find that this debtor has any intention of complying with the Bankruptcy Code nor with the Internal Revenue Code.
Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 28, 1997. He again alleges jurisdiction “under the American Flag of Peace.” Apparently, plaintiff is alleging that the IRS defendants, assisted by the Deputy Sheriff defendants, entered his property and seized three automobiles and a trailer in violation of his constitutional rights, while executing an IRS tax lien. He also again alleges a conspiracy under Title 42, United States Code, Section 1985.
Despite the notice, Schneider entered the premises without procuring prior written consent and served the summons. The petitioners contend that Schneider entered the property, notwithstanding the posted notice, “with reckless disregard towards [their] constitutional rights.”
According to the petition, the petitioner have “realistic concerns and fears stemming from previous Gestapo actions of the Internal Revenue Service against [Kent E. Hovind].” These concerns stem from a “raid” that the IRS allegedly performed on Kent E. Hovind's home. The petitioners also allege that “Internal Revenue Service agents are permitted to carry and use automatic firearms in the course of their investigative tactics, which includes terrorizing citizens of this country.” The petitioners now seek to enjoin the IRS and its agents from “contacting, harassing, and trespassing upon the premises of petitioners.”
The IRS is pursuing a criminal investigation regarding Kent E. Hovind's federal income tax liabilities. The actions the petitioners seek to enjoin would impair the IRS's attempt to assess and collect those taxes. Therefore, the Anti-Injunction Act is applicable in this instance, and the petitioners have the burden of demonstrating that an exception should be applied. Bowers v. United States, 423 F.2d 1207, 1208 [26 AFTR 2d 70-5106] (5th Cir. 1970). The petitioners have not done so. After review of the complaint, it is clear to me that this case does not present one of those “rare and compelling circumstances” necessitating an exception. The Anti-Injunction Act bars this Court from exercising jurisdiction over this matter. As a result, the complaint must be dismissed.