Friday, December 30, 2016

Kent Hovind Innocence Narrative The Latest Chapter

Kent Hovind's latest innocence narrative was long delayed (Originally it was going to be a January surprise.  January 2016) and had a false start, but it is up and running now.  It is the work of Brady Byrum.  And whatever else you might think of it, there seems to be an original idea here.

Kent Hovind was convicted on a 58 count indictment in 2006.  He appealed his conviction to the Eleventh Circuit which upheld it. He finished his long sentence last summer and is now on supervised release.

Brady Byrum 

Brady Byrum believes that Kent's conviction was wrongful and that, the Eleventh Circuit to the contrary notwithstanding, that the conviction can be overturned which will entitle Kent to substantial compensation.

Assuming Brady has arguments that support this conclusion, a conventional approach would be to go back to the Eleventh Circuit and argue that Kent had had ineffective assistance of counsel.  Well, that's the only thing I can think of anyway.  Brady Byrum is taking a different approach.

He is asking people to watch a series of videos that he believes will convince them that Kent Hovind is innocent and that the people complicit in his conviction, most notably Judge Margaret Casey Rodgers were altogether wicked.

Here are the videos .  I don't know of anybody who has watched them all.  None on the hearty band of Hovindologists have signed on for it.  Rudy Davis reports that he has started and is convinced that Brady is a legal genius

In the video you get a view of Rudy's garage which he is cleaning out.  It would make a good setting for a Storage Wars episode.

Anyway Rudy is geared up for the full drill so we will probably be hearing more from him.

After you watch the videos and you are convinced that Kent is innocent you are ready to take the next step, which involves a number of filings.

Forms To Fill Out

The First Set of Forms is addressed to the 11th Circuit.  There is a cover letter which seems to anticipate that the Court might be concerned about getting a boatload of these things.

Then there is a sworn affidavit of criminal complaint, which is, I guess, why you have to really listen, understand and agree with the videos so you can, you know, swear.  Among the things that you swear to is:
.  I AFFIRM that I BELIEVE that because Margaret Catherine Rodgers DID NOT refuse to accept, DID NOT abandon, DID NOT cast out and DID NOT reject the Fraud of the Federal Prosecutors contained in the Indictment thereof, during the above time span between the Indictment Filing Date of July 11, 2006 and the Trial Date of October 18, 2006, in Case Number 3:06CR83/MCR, that she therefore accepted, ratified, approved of and joined in with said Fraud, knowingly, willingly and voluntarily in a conspiracy with the other actors named herein.
OK.  So you just watched a video by a paralegal and you now believe that a judge whose opinion was upheld on appeal was in a conspiracy for accepting an indictment.  Just saying.  Here are a few more of the affirmations.

I AFFIRM I have read the three unoverturned United States Supreme Court case law quotes from the California Bankers Association v. Shultz, 416 U.S. 21 (1974); U. S. v. Murphy, 809 F. 2d 1427 (9th Circ. 1987); U.S. v. Mersky, 361 U.S. 431 (1960) cases, that clearly explain the tenet or maxim of law that when a Statute does not have its own Implementing Enforcement language, that Regulations must be written by the Executive Branch Official in charge of enforcement, for the Statute to be lawfully enforceable, applicable and prosecutable.
 I AFFIRM that I therefore BELIEVE that because the Statute 26 USC 7202 used in Counts One through Twelve of the Indictment in the Case Number of 3:06CR83/MCR had no Enforcement Regulations, it could not have been lawfully enforced against Kent Hovind, and thus SHOULD NOT have been prosecuted against Kent Hovind.
I AFFIRM I have read quotes from at least four separate Federal Case laws U.S. v. Reinis, 794 F.2d 506; U.S. v. Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432; U.S. v. Anzalone, 766 F.2d 676 and U.S. v. Varbel, 780 F.2d. 758 that clearly show the COMPLETE ABSENCE OF CRIMINALITY regarding 18 USC 2 and 31 USC 5313, when the total of transactions conducted by each individual at any single bank, on any single day, did not add up to or go over $10,000.
.  I AFFIRM that this invalidity of the Form 4789 does not JUST strip the one United States District Court in the Northern District of Florida from lawfully prosecuting the 45 Hovind Structuring charges in Case Number 3:06CR83/MCR, this also strips the lawfulness from EVERY OTHER Structuring Charge and conviction across the entire United States of America, filed against every other Defendant, making the alleged offense of Structuring an utter IMPOSSIBILITY when the Form 4789 has NOT EVER been truly mandatory to begin with.

Then there is a Complaint of Judicial Misconduct or Disability and letter to send to your Congressman and Senators looking to impeach Judge Rodgers.

The second set of forms concern one of the prosecutors Michelle Heldmyer.  The third set of forms are, I think to appeal if the first set does not work.

What About Later Case Law?

What is odd about the whole package is the notion that Brady Byrum thinks he has proved that all structuring convictions are invalid and he maintains that Judge Rodgers is criminal for not reaching the same conclusion.  If Kent and Jo Hovind had been the only people to be convicted of structuring, he might have a point, but they are hardly alone as you can see here.

I have to confess that I have not listened to all 12 hours.  I'm more of a reader, but I think I have extracted a key piece from the first video at 26:13.  It is the list of cases that Mr. Byrum will use to build his argument.

US v Reinis - 1986
US v Espriella 1986
US v Varbel 1986
US v Anzalone  1985
US v  Richter 1985
US v $200,000 1984
 California Bankers Association v Shultz 1974

What I find interesting is that the statute that the Hovinds were proved to have violated 31 USC 5324 - Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement. was added in 1986.  So none of that case law relates to that statute directly.

There is quite a bit of post-1986 case law that is actually about the statute that the Hovinds were convicted under.  In some instances there were acquittals based on lack of willfulness, but the statute has been upheld.  US v MacPherson, for example, was decided in 2005.

Byrum's apparent lack of discussion of case law after the statute in question was passed, at least in my mind, greatly weakens his argument.  Frankly arguing that a judge is criminal for not overturning a statute that has been upheld is kind of preposterous.

About The False Start

The false start that I mentioned at the outset is alluded to. In Part 8 at the outset, you will see in small print at the bottom.
The views expressed in these materials are not necessarily the views of CSE Inc or its principals.
I asked Ernie Land of CSE about that and he gave me the following statement

Brady Byrum interviewed Dr. Kent Hovind intensively for weeks as an investigative reporter. After getting all the facts relating to Dr. Hovind’s case Brady Byrum has prepared a very well researched DVD series proving with case law Dr. Hovind’s innocence. The timing could not be more perfect as it seems this election has proven American’s have awaken to the excessive abuse in Politics,  Government and in our Judicial system as well. Many of us felt the Judge was very biased and even overreached in an effort to discriminate against Christians. The DVD series Kent Hovind Innocent revels all those abuses with case law and the real reason codes were made in Congress to prove Dr. Hovind’s innocence. The Ministry and Creation Science Evangelism appreciates Brady exposing these truth’s. With that said we however do not wish to put Dr. Hovind in jeopardy and have made a decision to have Brady market any production third party to us.

Originally the innocence series was being promoted through Kent's website and the videos were not available on youtube.  You had to spend $50 before you could watch them  They still ask for $50 in the series to get the DVDs but it appears that you can go through the whole exercise without spending any money now and the plan is being promoted on a stand alone basis.

From My Brain Trust

I reached out to my legal brain trust and, not surprisingly, did not find a lawyer who would put in 12 hours watching youtube.  Mainly I was interested in learning whether somebody could get in trouble for doing anything suggested in the videos.  Peter Goldberger did respond with some observations that might be useful even though he did not dive into the material.

Each of the 13 Circuits of the U.S. Court of Appeals has a process, managed by the Chief Judge of the Circuit, for receiving and acting upon complaints suggesting that a federal judge sitting within that Circuit has engaged in ethical misconduct warranting discipline. The 11th Cir rules and procedures are here.   As you will see, the general information for the public about this process correctly and accurately states, "Almost all complaints in recent years have been dismissed because they do not follow the law about such complaints. The law says that complaints about judges’ decisions and complaints with no evidence to support them must be dismissed. If you are a litigant in a case and believe the judge made a wrong decision—even a very wrong decision—you may not use this procedure to complain about the decision."  Contrary to what the Hovind website says, this is *not* a process that can lead to "impeachment.' I have not read the attached model affidavit of complaint, so I cannot say whether it contains any information that would support a valid ethical complaint against Judge Rodgers. Let me just say that I am very skeptical.   
The people of the United States have a right under the First Amendment to petition their government for a redress of grievances.  The further suggestion that people should send affidavits to their Representatives and Senators seeking impeachment proceedings against Judge Rodgers are protected by that provision. It would not call this "paper terrorism" in any sense. It is not like filing liens against judges' and prosecutors' property, for example, nor does it strike me as similar to filing bogus lawsuits against them.  If you want to see how many federal judges have actually been impeached in the last 225 years, and for what, you can look here.  
The same goes for the part of the campaign that suggests filing ethics complaints against the prosecutor with the DOJ's "Office of Professional Responsibility."  I have not read the proposed complaint, but I doubt very much it has any legitimate basis. But even if it did, the OPR is a notorious "black hole," where even serious and legitimate complaints of misconduct against federal prosecutors are generally sent to be covered up, whitewashed, and brushed aside.  
I have never seen a campaign organized this way, so it will be interesting to see how it plays out in detail.  If Rudy Davis moves forward with it, I think we can count on getting regular updates on how the various agencies respond.  I'm looking forward to it.

Peter J Reilly CPA has been following the Kent Hovind story for over four years.

Sunday, December 18, 2016

A Very Cinema-graphic Passage

Off and on, I have been reading The Earth Is Weeping - The Epic Story of the Indian Wars for the American West by Peter Cozzens.  It is, of course, a very sad story, one that cries out for there had to be a better way. Regardless, it is well done and rich in anecdotes.  There was one passage in the book that really struck me.  And, maybe because of the movies I have watched, it strikes me as the most cinema-graphic passage I have ever read.  I leave it to the reader to figure out the back story,  I've added clips so you can listen to music.


In the predawn hours of May 17, 1876 the staccato bugle notes of "Boots and Saddles"

pierced the black stillness at Fort Abraham Lincoln.  The field exam had begun. The regiment mounted, the band struck up "Garryowen,"

and in the receding darkness the Seventh Cavalry passed in review.  General Terry permitted married officers and men a grief pause for a farewell embrace with their families.  The band changed tunes to "The Girl I Left Behind Me,"

and the long column snaked west onto the prairie.  A furtive light knifed through the fog to reveal a singular mirage: the marching cavalry appeared suspended between earth and sky.

In a film about the same regiment in a later battle Sam Elliot evaluated Custer somewhat harshly.

(Around 1:20, but all the clips are great)

Peter J Reilly will be posting more to this blog soon.

Tuesday, December 6, 2016

Ed Brown Thinks I Have A Staff - Go Figure

I'm starting small, but may be working my way into being a youtube celebrity.  My own youtube channel is a collection done mainly by Interlock Media covering Kent Hovind and Jill Stein, but now some of my blogging work is being featured on other youtube channels.  I wrote about the recent appearance of a piece on Bryan Delinger's channel.  Bryan is a King James only preacher who thinks that both Kent Hovind and I are Jesuits.

Rudy Davis

And then there is Rudy Davis.  One of the things I really admire about Rudy is the heart that he has for people who are in prison.  He was probably the most vocal Hovindicator - those fighting for the freedom of Kent Hovind, who is now in Lenox Alabama building a new Dinosaur Adventureland.

Now he has taken up Ed and Elaine Brown, who, as it happens were covered by me briefly in 2012 when I wrote about the First Circuit turning down their appeal and referencing supportive statements from then Presidential candidate Ron Paul.

I Show Ed Brown The Law

Ed Brown refused to pay income taxes until someone in authority "showed him the law" that required him to pay.  Rudy sent my article and also a print-out of a link from quatloos titled "Here is the Law That Makes the Average American Liable for the Income Tax".    I have since boiled the quatloos commentary into a handy little numerical mnenomic 26-1-61-6012, which I discuss at some length in this post about the three letters, according to Kent Hovind, proved that he had done nothing wrong.

 Title 26 of the United States Code.  Section 1 imposes an income tax on individuals.  Section 61 defines income very, very broadly including, by way of example, "compensation for services" and Section 6012 requires the filing of a return if your income is over very modest thresholds.
Not According To Ed Brown 

I did not have much hope that Ed Brown would respond well to me "showing him the law".  And that is the way it turned out as you can see here.

Here is his response.  I did some light editing, but you can see the original on the video, in case you want to check that I did not misrepresent anything.


Dear Rudy:

Thank you for the article re Pardon by Ron Paul. The article is in a seemingly sensible format, however it is rife with error.  The individual that wrote it comes from a place of Hegelian study and works i.e. Communist agenda.  He is a spin doctor and not a very good one.  I would like to do a face to face with him on a national show one day.  It would take that long to expose all the criminal weaving and creation of the law, such as the bogus 13th, 14th and 16th amendments.

The author is a condescending Liberal who supports the New World Order.  A check on his affiliations would verify this quickly.  He has the privilege of the bogus national news media, the entire status quo liberal government and an endless support of staff to convince the population how wonderful and clever he is and how, as he writes, stupid and insane anyone who objects to the unlawful, foreign controlled IRS, Federal Reserve, and B.A.R. (British Accredited Registry), communist News Media.

Everyone needs to understand that every time from the first trial we tried to present the truth before the court of government at any level we were denied the right to speak. We have never been allowed to present any of our evidence or witnesses to this day.  No one has ever sat down to a face to face with me or my wife that the public has ever seen or heard.  This is why they put us into the CMU.  To keep us silent.

I must get to a very public and live hearing.  The courts know that I know.  That is why they are all recusing themselves from current cases in the appellate and district courts, The Secret Service, FBI, Supreme Court, news media, governor, etc.  all my presentments.  Total silence.

I am a United States Constitution Ranger who always paid all taxes as the record show.  The money to cover the IRS taxes was in escrow.

I offered to pay the tax in court of the record of the Government could show me the law and neither Mr. Reilly of the Government has done so. "Any law that violates any of the Articles of the organic Constitution are to be ignored from their inception and are null and void." Am Jur

The crimes of the Crown B.A.R. are documented from the Magna Charter and the beginning of the united States. This Crown is located within the City of London called the City.  Anyway, I have the answers but need to make my report to the correct Republic government Official. So I wait.

Thank you.  I don't know how to get to you the large amount of information that proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt that the income taxes are bogus without a presentation.

You need the whole truth and nothing but the truth.

How do we do it?




Really Not Funny

Of course there is a temptation for me to be amused by this.  I joked with Rudy that I was having trouble finding the staff that is supposed to be providing me with endless support.

The only critique that I am going to present is that Mr. Brown makes it clear that he was being just a bit disingenuous when he managed to get his supporters to say that he just wanted someone to show him the law that required him to pay income tax.  The law is in Title 26 of the United States Code (The Internal Revenue Code) and for all the talk about how complicated and confusing the law is, the basic requirement illustrated by Sections 1, 61 and 6102 are not complicated.

What Mr. Brown apparently wants is to be shown a law that is in his view, as a United States Constitution Ranger, is valid.

The reason this is not funny is that he and his wife, given their age, will be spending the rest of their lives in federal prison as did Irwin Schiff.

The article that is under discussion is this one and you will see that it is mainly a report on this First Circuit decision that upheld their conviction.  I would be interested in hearing from them their account of the events leading up to their arrest.  I did not make it clear enough that I was taking the decision at face value.

Very Sad

Like Rudy, I think it is a very sad thing that Mr. and Mrs. Brown are spending the rest of their lives in prison.  Very few people who fail to pay income taxes ever end up doing any time, but of course they tend to be more passive aggressive rather than openly defiant.  I asked Rudy that if we assume, for the sake of argument, that the tax laws are actual laws, what we need to do with people who flat out defy them.

Rudy indicated that he is giving the matter some thought.  Maybe denial of government services.  In another email he reflected more on the subject.and the statement that I find most compelling is
To imprison Ed and Elaine Brown for the the rest of their life and take all their belongings is wrong
Much as I believe that the Browns problems are entirely of their own making, I have to sympathize with that view.

At any rate, I have offered this venue for any material that Ed Brown wants the public to know about.  We'll see how that goes.  I think that Ron Paul owes the Browns a visit in prison and such aid as he can render.  As a matter of fact anybody who is out there telling people that the income tax laws are not real should be reaching out and helping the Browns.  Particularly if they are making money at it.

You Don't Get To Have Your Very Own Constitution

My bottom line on theories that somehow we deviated from the real Constitution at some point - in the case of the Browns (it is around 1865 at the latest) and we can just roll back to that point is that that is not the ways law and constitutions work.

There can be a truth about the physical universe in which you are right and everybody else is wrong, but not about human laws.  If there is overwhelming consensus on what the law is, then that is the law.  If you can convince people it is something different, then it will be something different, one way or another.

I would be really surprised if it turned out that, as Rudy believes, the earth is about 6,000 years old and has the sun orbiting around it.  The truth of those propositions, though is independent of belief, so I can't tell Rudy he is definitely wrong because of all these people who believe he is wrong.  And their changing their minds would not make him right.

Different story with the income tax.  If the whole judiciary, legislature and executive believes that it is constitutional, then it is.  If a preponderance of them change their minds, then the reality changes.

If You Care

If you want to encourage Ron Paul to reach out to the Browns, Rudy tells you how.

About The Constitutional Rangers

It appears that the United States Constitution Rangers went more or less moribund, but someone by the name of William Miller seems to have picked up the torch.
As far as I know, there is no man who has served the Rangers, as regards their original intent, nor even beginning to comprehend their original intent, more productively than I, other than Pappy Louis Robertson, who found the original charter and shield in the first place.

At least, I believe I have cracked the historical code, and I am certainly taking pro-active leadership measures, to insure that the Rangers will endure, and that the Rangers' history will make some compelling sense to someone who may care.


Peter J Reilly CPA, rumors to the contrary notwithstanding, does not have a large staff, or any staff at all, is not a Jesuit and is not affiliated with the New World Order - at least as far as he knows.