Kent Hovind in trouble again

Posted 29 October 2014 by Matt Young

I haven't got time to investigate further, but Hovind watchers might be interested that Mr, Hovind (Dr. Dino) has been charged with filing a lien on property that had already been forfeited. Or something. A Forbes columnist, Peter Reilly, suggests that the government is piling on, and I suspect he is right; you may read about it here. Acknowledgement. Link provided by the truly indefatigable Dan Phelps.

36 Comments

Stephen A Yeats · 30 October 2014

It seems that rather than "piling on" as has been suggested the IRS has come to the end of it's tether with Kent Hovind and his lawyer filing lis pendens and other liens on property forfeited at the original trial, and in the last case filing a lien after an injunction was raised in an attempt to prevent further false filings. The root of the matter seems to be that in attempting to recover the 400K determined owed at the original trial, the IRS via the court now has ownership of various properties formerly owned by the Hovinds, the repeated filings of lis pendens etc. by Hovind and/or his lawyer make the properties less attractive to any potential buyer, thus the injunction, and since it was ignored, new charges against him and his lawyer Paul J Hansen.
Please see -
http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/USA_v_Kent_Hovind_and_Paul_Hansen_Indictment

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawl2K7uR9rBjsqqhOQucKzCjznizp7r6O4A · 30 October 2014

Stephen A Yeats is right. It's been years that the IRS has been trying to collect the $400,000+ that was assessed against Hovind at his trial. He has abused the judicial system to delay and frustrate that process. Worse, this is not the first time he has done so. In the 1990s he abused the bankruptcy process to try to do the same:

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/hovind-decision.html

He is a unrecalcitrent, serial abuser of our legal system and needs to be slapped down as a lesson to him and to any others out there that think they can get away with this cr*p.

John · 30 October 2014

Whoops! that last comment by "A Masked Panda" was by me. I'm not sure how that happened.

Childermass · 30 October 2014

They must go after him.

When a felon in prison manages to commit the same behaviors behind bars directing fraud on the outside from within, the government should go after him. Indeed it must because if it becomes clear to those in prison that there is no price to pay for this sort of thing, many more will follow his lead.

Hovind has and always had a very simple method to avoid the government pressing charges against him: get in compliance with the law. If anything the government should have had him behind bars far earlier than it did given his public flaunting of the government's authority and his continuous clear major violations of both the letter and spirit of the law.

Just Bob · 30 October 2014

Childermass said: Hovind has and always had a very simple method to avoid the government pressing charges against him: get in compliance with the law. If anything the government should have had him behind bars far earlier than it did given his public flaunting of the government's authority and his continuous clear major violations of both the letter and spirit of the law.

But...... Jesus!

W. H. Heydt · 30 October 2014

A sensible person would realize that taxes are what you pay to maintain normal conditions around you, including all the infrastructure you use. A sensible Bible thumper would accept the the "Render unto Caesar...." verse and pay his assessed taxes and move on.

Hovind is just digging his hole deeper and is likely to suffer the consequences of doing so.

DS · 30 October 2014

W. H. Heydt said: A sensible person would realize that taxes are what you pay to maintain normal conditions around you, including all the infrastructure you use. A sensible Bible thumper would accept the the "Render unto Caesar...." verse and pay his assessed taxes and move on. Hovind is just digging his hole deeper and is likely to suffer the consequences of doing so.

Maybe he took the bible too literally and paid his taxes in Italy.

Karen S. · 30 October 2014

Maybe he took the bible too literally and paid his taxes in Italy.

Good one!

ksplawn · 30 October 2014

DS said:
W. H. Heydt said: A sensible person would realize that taxes are what you pay to maintain normal conditions around you, including all the infrastructure you use. A sensible Bible thumper would accept the the "Render unto Caesar...." verse and pay his assessed taxes and move on. Hovind is just digging his hole deeper and is likely to suffer the consequences of doing so.
Maybe he took the bible too literally and paid his taxes in Italy.

"The Bible says to 'render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.' I don't see Caesar around anymore, do you?"

W. H. Heydt · 30 October 2014

ksplawn said:
DS said:
W. H. Heydt said: A sensible person would realize that taxes are what you pay to maintain normal conditions around you, including all the infrastructure you use. A sensible Bible thumper would accept the the "Render unto Caesar...." verse and pay his assessed taxes and move on. Hovind is just digging his hole deeper and is likely to suffer the consequences of doing so.
Maybe he took the bible too literally and paid his taxes in Italy.
"The Bible says to 'render unto Caesar what is Caesar's.' I don't see Caesar around anymore, do you?"

Sid, Romero...lot's of Caesars.

gnome de net · 30 October 2014

W. H. Heydt said: Sid, Romero...lot's of Caesars.

Those two are, uh, no longer with us.

Just Bob · 30 October 2014

gnome de net said:
W. H. Heydt said: Sid, Romero...lot's of Caesars.
Those two are, uh, no longer with us.

But Caesar (Cesar) is a common name among Mexican-Americans. And plenty of them would be happy to take Kent's renderings.

harold · 30 October 2014

Stephen A Yeats said: It seems that rather than "piling on" as has been suggested the IRS has come to the end of it's tether with Kent Hovind and his lawyer filing lis pendens and other liens on property forfeited at the original trial, and in the last case filing a lien after an injunction was raised in an attempt to prevent further false filings. The root of the matter seems to be that in attempting to recover the 400K determined owed at the original trial, the IRS via the court now has ownership of various properties formerly owned by the Hovinds, the repeated filings of lis pendens etc. by Hovind and/or his lawyer make the properties less attractive to any potential buyer, thus the injunction, and since it was ignored, new charges against him and his lawyer Paul J Hansen. Please see - http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/USA_v_Kent_Hovind_and_Paul_Hansen_Indictment

The Forbes comments section contains some good, articulate pro-science comments. Nevertheless, I would have expected in advance that a Forbes article would be biased in favor of Hovind, as indeed this one seems to be. Of course Forbes is far too sophisticated to outright endorse either creationism or super-crude tax evasion schemes of the Hovind level. But on the other hand, they can't say anything good about the IRS, or even the concept of progressive taxation for the public good, either - that would lead to 90% of readers immediately cancelling their subscription - and they can't be too nasty about Hovind types, because if only callous, martini-sipping, "libertarian" commodities traders voted Republican, things would be different. They can't overtly defend Hovind, but they can't criticize him much either, so "he should be punished, but less" is about all they can say. Bottom line - Hovind wouldn't pay his taxes. And now, he is trying to prevent the taxpayers from recovering what he owes. I doubt if a jury will find him not guilty. Courtrooms may not be as rigorous as laboratories, but both are places where bullshit gets called and facts come to light. Creationists do much, much worse in court than they do in ill-written poll questions. A jury may start out sympathetic to a "man of God" but as more and more evidence of slimey behavior comes out, in a place where dissembling works poorly, that sympathy may deteriorate.

Matt Young · 30 October 2014

... I would have expected in advance that a Forbes article would be biased in favor of Hovind, as indeed this one seems to be ....

My apologies -- I should have known better than to take anything in Forbes at face value. Thanks to Mr. Yeats and others for the explanations.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawm-WhebH0itIDDTj06EQo2vtiF0BBqF10Q · 30 October 2014

Just Bob said:
gnome de net said:
W. H. Heydt said: Sid, Romero...lot's of Caesars.
Those two are, uh, no longer with us.
But Caesar (Cesar) is a common name among Mexican-Americans. And plenty of them would be happy to take Kent's renderings.

Cajus Julius Caesar is a German politician and current member of the German parliament.

KlausH · 31 October 2014

Just Bob said:
gnome de net said:
W. H. Heydt said: Sid, Romero...lot's of Caesars.
Those two are, uh, no longer with us.
But Caesar (Cesar) is a common name among Mexican-Americans. And plenty of them would be happy to take Kent's renderings.

And there are plenty of Kaisers, which is the correct pronounciation.

phhht · 31 October 2014

KlausH said: And there are plenty of Kaisers, which is ~~the~~ one correct pronounciation.

FTFY.

Yardbird · 1 November 2014

KlausH said:
Just Bob said:
gnome de net said:
W. H. Heydt said: Sid, Romero...lot's of Caesars.
Those two are, uh, no longer with us.
But Caesar (Cesar) is a common name among Mexican-Americans. And plenty of them would be happy to take Kent's renderings.
And there are plenty of Kaisers, which is the correct pronounciation.

I'd rather have the rye.

KlausH · 2 November 2014

phhht said:
KlausH said: And there are plenty of Kaisers, which is ~~the~~ one correct pronounciation.
FTFY.

If you took Latin, you would know this.

Just Bob · 2 November 2014

KlausH said:
phhht said:
KlausH said: And there are plenty of Kaisers, which is ~~the~~ one correct pronounciation.
FTFY.
If you took Latin, you would know this.

I did, and it's more like kai-SAHR.

phhht · 2 November 2014

KlausH said:
phhht said:
KlausH said: And there are plenty of Kaisers, which is ~~the~~ one correct pronounciation.
FTFY.
If you took Latin, you would know this.

I took Latin, but I don't speak it now. The "correctness" of any pronunciation is entirely situational.

gdavidson418 · 2 November 2014

Pronunciation often is significantly different in Classical Latin from that of Medieval Latin.

Glen Davidson

KlausH · 2 November 2014

A C at the start of a word is hard and ae is pronounced as a long "I". I can't think of any exceptions.

KlausH · 2 November 2014

Medieval Latin was often spoken by people who did not know how to speak Latin, and often badly mispronounced words. That is why "Jesus" and "Regina" are usually badly mispronounced.

TomS · 2 November 2014

The Wikipedia article "Latin spelling and pronunciation" covers it well.

phhht · 2 November 2014

KlausH said: A C at the start of a word is hard and ae is pronounced as a long "I". I can't think of any exceptions.

But only in Latin. In English, Cae may be pronounced "see" - correctly.

TomS · 2 November 2014

KlausH said: Medieval Latin was often spoken by people who did not know how to speak Latin, and often badly mispronounced words. That is why "Jesus" and "Regina" are usually badly mispronounced.

The change in pronunciation is totally normal. It is one of those features of languages in which change is without a goal ("random"), and, while purists descry it as degeneration, leads to newer complexity. Just like in biology (where the eugenicists and creationists take the role of language purists). See also the Wikipedia articles on "Ancient Greek phonology", "Koine Greek phonology", "Modern Greek phonology", "Biblical Hebrew phonology", "Modern Hebrew phonology", "Historical Chinese phonology", and "Old Chinese phonology". A quick search didn't turn up a comparable treatment of Sanskrit pronunciation, but there surely have been changes from Vedic to modern. The only one that I can think of is the change from "w" to "v" (which reminds me of the same change in Latin and Hebrew).

harold · 4 November 2014

TomS said:
KlausH said: Medieval Latin was often spoken by people who did not know how to speak Latin, and often badly mispronounced words. That is why "Jesus" and "Regina" are usually badly mispronounced.
The change in pronunciation is totally normal. It is one of those features of languages in which change is without a goal ("random"), and, while purists descry it as degeneration, leads to newer complexity. Just like in biology (where the eugenicists and creationists take the role of language purists). See also the Wikipedia articles on "Ancient Greek phonology", "Koine Greek phonology", "Modern Greek phonology", "Biblical Hebrew phonology", "Modern Hebrew phonology", "Historical Chinese phonology", and "Old Chinese phonology". A quick search didn't turn up a comparable treatment of Sanskrit pronunciation, but there surely have been changes from Vedic to modern. The only one that I can think of is the change from "w" to "v" (which reminds me of the same change in Latin and Hebrew).

However, while language change is inevitable, there is value in adhering to formal standards at any given time. The value exists for this reason - there are always many different informal, regional, or subcultural ways to speak a language. Formal "standard" language is the type that is most easily understood by the greatest number of people. Deliberate use of informal language, in a formal setting, is sometimes a device to foster exclusion and division, because using it may make it harder for some people to understand you, and may imply that your particular dialect is privileged over other informal dialects. A very good example of a person who does this deliberately is Sarah Palin. I want to differentiate what I'm saying from obnoxious snobbery. I don't mean that people who have an honest reason for needing to speak in an informal or regional way are in any way to be denigrated for that. But when there is a choice, it's usually a courtesy to speak in a more formal and standard way, unless you know that all listeners share fluency in whatever informal speech you planned to use. Of course, at the same time, what is "standard" keeps shifting.

Robert Baty · 4 November 2014

It is worth noting that Paul John Hansen, Hovind's co-conspirator, is not a lawyer as was indicated in a WND article today.

Also, in addition to the $400,000 referenced with regard to the Hovind criminal proceedings, the Hovinds owe millions in personal income tax liabilities as a result of their separate U.S. Tax Court trials.

I happen to think Kent should get a mental evaluation as part of the present proceeding and if he is seriously interested in getting home sooner rather than later he should repent and start making a deal with the feds. I suspect, however, that he has no interest in hasting a reunion with the woman he sent to prison for a year. It may be that Hansen will flip on Hovind and get the deal.

W. H. Heydt · 4 November 2014

Robert Baty said: It is worth noting that Paul John Hansen, Hovind's co-conspirator, is not a lawyer as was indicated in a WND article today. Also, in addition to the $400,000 referenced with regard to the Hovind criminal proceedings, the Hovinds owe millions in personal income tax liabilities as a result of their separate U.S. Tax Court trials. I happen to think Kent should get a mental evaluation as part of the present proceeding and if he is seriously interested in getting home sooner rather than later he should repent and start making a deal with the feds. I suspect, however, that he has no interest in hasting a reunion with the woman he sent to prison for a year. It may be that Hansen will flip on Hovind and get the deal.

Are you saying there is no honor among thieves? Shocking!

Robert Baty · 4 November 2014

@ W.H. Heydt

In all the cop shows the first one to flip gets the deal.

One can only wonder how it will play out since it appears Hovind and Hansen will not be having any direct contact.

Will Hansen flip in an effort to get back to Omaha?
Will Hovind flip in order to minimize the delay in his release?
Will they agree to go hand in hand and take whatever may befall them?

Time will tell, and I do hope they don't delay that December 1, 2014 trial date!

Robert Baty · 4 November 2014

Then again, the Government may consider the case so strong that no flipping will be necessary; maybe they both make a deal simply based on guilty pleas and certain important admissions regarding their respective antics over the years.

Matt Young · 4 November 2014

Prisoner's dilemma.

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik · 5 November 2014

If you ask me, good ol' Yahweh is hardening the governments heart in order to pound home his message to the Hovinds.

They ignore it at their own peril.

So be it.

W. H. Heydt · 5 November 2014

Rikki_Tikki_Taalik said: If you ask me, good ol' Yahweh is hardening the governments heart in order to pound home his message to the Hovinds. They ignore it at their own peril. So be it.

IsEric Kent's first-born son?

gnome de net · 11 November 2014

PZ Myers weighs in:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/2014/11/11/hovind-could-get-another-20-years-tacked-onto-his-sentence/