And at the end:'Dr. Dino,' wife guilty Jury deliberations took about three hours. A federal jury has convicted Kent Hovind and his wife, Jo, of tax fraud. Hovind faces a maximum of 288 years in prison. His wife faces up to 225 years. Her charges include aiding and abetting her husband with 44 counts of evading bank-reporting requirements.
My question: if the Hovinds weren't going to put on a defense, why didn't they just make a plea bargain agreement, avoid the ordeal of a trial, and get reduced sentences?Defense lawyers for the Hovinds rested their case on Wednesday without presenting evidence or calling witnesses.
57 Comments
Sir_Toejam · 2 November 2006
hmm, somebody owes me an apology for suggesting in the related thread that this wouldn't turn out to be an early xmas present.
David B. Benson · 2 November 2006
Martyrdom?
Sir_Toejam · 2 November 2006
Sir_Toejam · 2 November 2006
DragonScholar · 2 November 2006
I'm trying to figure out what their legal strategy was myself.
One of my theories is they're hoping for some kind of political favor, popular opinion, SOMETHING to save their butts. Which doesn't seem forthcoming.
DragonScholar · 2 November 2006
I'm trying to figure out what their legal strategy was myself.
One of my theories is they're hoping for some kind of political favor, popular opinion, SOMETHING to save their butts. Which doesn't seem forthcoming.
Shalini, BBWAD · 2 November 2006
Nah, just going to jail for Jesus.
Nelson Blaha · 2 November 2006
Hooray! It's about time. It's fascinating to me that he maintains his belongings are actually God's, despite the mysterious $6,000 checks to his kids from the CSE coffers.
delphi_ote · 2 November 2006
I disagreed with everything he stood for and everything he did, but I still feel sorry for him right now. Deep down, I think the guy just needed help he couldn't get. It's a shame that his supporters, religion, and family enabled him for so long.
Michael · 2 November 2006
Does this mean I have no chance of winning the $250k? I'm almost done with my proof.
Wayne Francis · 2 November 2006
Hmmm aren't most appeals limited to the evidence shown in the lower court trial?
I honestly don't see what grounds they would appeal on.
Any word on when the sentencing is going to take place?
Parse · 2 November 2006
Someone had said it in an earlier Hovind thread, that what he may be after is a 'victimization' complex - "Oh, look at me, I'm the victim of an activist judge... and an activist jury... and an activist police department... and an activist IRS agent..."
By not putting up a defense, he can use the (completely incorrect) excuse later on that "Everyone was consipiring against me, and there is no way I could have received a fair trial. They didn't even let me present a defense! But if I did put up a defense, I would've gotten off scott free..."
Sir_Toejam · 2 November 2006
steve s · 2 November 2006
Sir_Toejam · 2 November 2006
btw, for anybody who missed it, perhaps an even better thing to have happen today:
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/ap/nation/4307105.html
seeing Teddy boy go down is perhaps even sweeter. It certainly has more impact on evangelicals at large.
DistendedPendulusFrenulum · 2 November 2006
I'd go for the martyrdom strategy. Christian paranoia is big business. It gets politicians elected, the Liberal Bashing Industry profits from it, and it keeps (the radical wing of) Christian believers in line.
They'll be sending out the standard propaganda from within the jail--LBI boilerplate--Christan persecution, activist judges, godless liberals controlling society. . .
Coin · 2 November 2006
kay · 2 November 2006
HAHAHAHA PWNED
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 2 November 2006
Dave Carlson · 2 November 2006
Bill Gascoyne · 2 November 2006
Sir_Toejam · 2 November 2006
Bill Gascoyne · 2 November 2006
Sir_Toejam · 3 November 2006
Jason Spaceman · 3 November 2006
Chuck C · 3 November 2006
Aagcobb · 3 November 2006
Hovind made a legal defense that the prosecution failed to make the case against Hovind. Since the burden of proof is on the prosecution, the defendant doesn't have to present any evidence if the prosecution fails to prove his case beyond a reasonable doubt. That being said, Hovind's argument presented in court, that the prosecutor failed to show he knew he had an obligation to withold taxes, is lame, since generally ignorance of the law is no excuse. But he'll get his chance to make his argument on appeal. Wouldn't it be funny if he ended up sharing a cell with another celebrity tax dodger, Richard Hatch (the gay, naked "Survivor")?
Flint · 3 November 2006
My original concern has not changed. I never thought Hovind had much chance of getting off (save for the unlikely possibility that some fanatical nutball creationist lied (gasp!) to get on the jury to hang it). Instead, I've always wondered just exactly when and how much Hovind will pay. He has, remember, been in legal trouble for over a decade without being slowed down noticeably.
And I've noticed (lawyers here can surely explain) that the maximum possible sentence (jail time plus fine) and the sentence actually served and paid tend to be, uh, somewhat different.
So maybe we should start a pool: When will Hovind's penalty start being paid? As a starting point, once again, remember the clock started over a decade ago...
Joseph Alden · 3 November 2006
Hey Lenny, why not come out of the closet yourself ?
That would make it THREE exposed " Reverends."
Not just Cool, mr. fraud, I mean, that would be REALLY Cool !
Joseph Alden · 3 November 2006
Hey Lenny, why not come out of the closet yourself ?
Go ahead, let's make it THREE exposed " Reverends."
Not just cool, mr. fraud, that would be REALLY Cool !
Jim Wynne · 3 November 2006
paulh · 3 November 2006
A pity medical science hasn't advanced to the point that he can be kept alive for all 288 years.
I think he's relying on either (a) the prison guards will object to guarding him on grounds that this violates health & safety regs and/or (b) the other prisoners will claim that being in the same prison as him constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, to keep his sorry arse out of clink.
GuyeFaux · 3 November 2006
Bill Gascoyne · 3 November 2006
Bill Gascoyne · 3 November 2006
OK, I hadn't read the article. He is incarcerated pending sentence. Apology offered uncontitionally. Now if this will just actually post on the first or second try...
Flint · 3 November 2006
Jim Wynne:
Hallelujah! My faith in the American legal system is restored. I wonder what the mechanics are of "forfeiting" the money.
Peter Henderson · 3 November 2006
According to Hovind's website, he's only expecting 5 months:
http://www.drdino.com/itinerary.php
But then agin, it could be in need of updating !
Christopher Letzelter · 3 November 2006
Chuck C. said
"Much as I like to see a bible thumper go down, that's a really special kind of clueless."
If you read the story, Mr. Haggard was using an alias - "Art" - and so Mr. Jones didn't know his client was a bible-thumping evangelical pastor.
Chris
Dave Thomas · 3 November 2006
Well, maybe Dr. Dino will finally have time for that written debate challenge he refused years ago.
Dave
Wes · 3 November 2006
Steviepinhead · 3 November 2006
But the alias Haggard was using was his middle name.
Now, that may have seemed super-sneaky and deeply cryptic on the front end of this hypocritic little scam--after all, Haggard is very well known, but only by his first and last names.
But, um, it's not such an artful dodge on the back end where, if you are ever outed, you need to be able to engage in something called "plausible deniability".
So the guy's the head of a mega-church that's got wads of cash, uses every hi-tech hi-sales device, and the head of a 30-million strong evangelistic alliance--more cash, more access to tech--both of which are anti-drug, anti-prostitution, anti-gay.
And he wants to indulge in a little gay prostitution while high on meth "just for research." So does he buy an off-the-shelf voice disguise box for the leaving of voicemail? Uh, no. Does he use something other than his own middle name to "disguise" his secret identity. Duh, no.
Why? Because as god's very own sanctimonious hypocrit, he's convinced he'll never get caught and will never need "plausible deniability."
And this guy called Dawkins "arrogant"?
In the whole universe, there aren't enough HAs to follow the initial BWA to express how hilarious this is.
I'm sure RD will be most delicate in making any comment but surely, under the polite British exterior, he is ROTFLHAO!
Dean Morrison · 3 November 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 November 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 November 2006
'Rev Dr' Lenny Flank · 3 November 2006
Jason Spaceman · 3 November 2006
Henry J · 3 November 2006
Re "The jury also granted the prosecution's request for the Hovinds to forfeit $430,400."
Wonder if that would cover the cost of keeping them incarcerated for a few decades?
Henry
Alan Bird · 5 November 2006
A double dose of schadenfreude these last few days; it's all rather satisfying really. Triple if you add Saddam to the mix.
Btw, earlier this year, Richard Dawkins appeared on TV in the UK. He was examining religious fundamentalism, and his programme showed him visiting a christian church in, I think, Colorado Springs. He interviewed the head man (pastor?), and it was noticeable that although both spoke English, there was no communication whatsoever between them. Whatever the opposite of 'a meeting of minds' is, that was it. I note that Haggard also comes from Colorado Springs. Was he the man that Dawkins talked to? If so, Prof Dawkins must feel doubly chuffed.
Alan Bird · 5 November 2006
A double dose of schadenfreude these last few days; it's all rather satisfying really. Triple if you add Saddam to the mix.
Btw, earlier this year, Richard Dawkins appeared on TV in the UK. He was examining religious fundamentalism, and his programme showed him visiting a christian church in, I think, Colorado Springs. He interviewed the head man (pastor?), and it was noticeable that although both spoke English, there was no communication whatsoever between them. Whatever the opposite of 'a meeting of minds' is, that was it. I note that Haggard also comes from Colorado Springs. Was he the man that Dawkins talked to? If so, Prof Dawkins must feel doubly chuffed.
William E Emba · 5 November 2006
Regarding the Dawkins interview of Haggard, see The Root of All Evil?.
John Smith · 17 November 2006
It's true that it was farfetched to think he could beat the government, but I guess it would also be interesting to see the other side of the story. I don't think 17 years of fighting the system was just because he didn't want to pay taxes. We only get the incriminating evidence exposed, but we never get the other side of the story. I'm not justifying what he did, but it would be interesting to see what were his basis, legal or not, to do this. There is obviously more than what is being publish than just "I work for God and I don't have to pay taxes"
Who knows, maybe we have gotten so used to paying for something and don't really reason it all out.
I mean we pay taxes that pay the salary of politicians and government officials that represent nothing close to our values, our beliefs, and will much less bring something good to our families and children in the future.
But this is my humble unbiased opinion.
Coin · 17 November 2006
J-Dog · 12 January 2007
What's the status of this turd-brain? Wasn't he supposed to be sentenced Jan 9?
BELIVER · 12 January 2007
WHILE all you prove to yourself HOW you evolved THEY ARE GETTING READY TO START rebuilding the temple in JERUSALEM, TO START ANIMAL SCARFICE REMEMBER THIS AS A BATTLE YOU WON AGAINST A MAN THROWING A ROPE TO DROWING SOULS AND YOU THREW IT BACK .
Flint · 12 January 2007
If you can beliver can I bepancreas?
KL · 13 January 2007
Scarfice? You mean Al Pacino posts here?
quick common · 16 January 2007
common law......they are in thr wrong court