Kent Hovind Since Sept 2013

[grixit]

Sovs are really into latin terms. "Sub Poena" means "Under Punishment". That's not an invitation. This case might after all, be an improper usage of the action, but as usual, our heroic freedom fighter is applying the least effective method of fighting it.

[notorial dissent]

OK, now it makes sense sort of. Although how or why some sovrun nutcase in of all places NE would be involved in Kent's whatever it was he was doing is a bit out there, but it makes sense, and if this guy was handling money for Kent, and filing documents, it opens a whole new plethora of hurt for him, since I can now see where a grand jury with something like this could really add to his woes. I can't imagine it doing Hansen any good in the long run, but even less for Kent now that I think about it. He may really need that PD after all.

[Paths of the Sea]

Hansen has a FaceBook page at:

https://www.facebook.com/pauljjhansen

His last post there was:

From: Paul John Hansen
Date: July 26, 2014

I am a lawyer and I can assemble a brief and
a lien to most likely keep any US court judgment
inoperable, based on land can not be taken by a
US court unless it is owned in trust by - The
United States of America.

pauljjhansen@hotmail.com
- see free inhabitant.info have the family contact me ASAP.

-----------------------------------------------------

[Arthur Rubin]

So Hansen is probably creating "paper terrorism". Since Hovind was based in FL, that makes it even more likely that there's also a civil case against Hansen in FL, probably for "slander of credit".

I still think there's potential for the abuse of a criminal subpoena to bring the witness into the jurisdiction (or venue -- the difference escapes me at the moment) where he would be subject to a civil subpoena -- even if the criminal subpoena is reasonable.

[Paths of the Sea]

I also just noticed that Paul John Hansen likes to participate in the following FaceBook group, having posted his last note only about an hour ago:

https://www.facebook.com/groups/suijurislaw/

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[fortinbras]

There is a Paul John Hansen who lives in Omaha, and who appeared pro se in a number of very unsuccessful court cases (circa 2005-2008) in which he complained that the municipal govt had knocked down his uninhabitable slum property without adequate notice. He was NOT identified in any of the court papers as a lawyer.

There was also a Paul John Hansen who, in Florida, ca. 2010, appeared pro se as the director of a Christian Science-affiliated trust, and the court threw out his case simply because a trust requires a bona fide lawyer to represent it and he refused to retain one. I do not know if this is the same Hansen.

[fortinbras]

I also just noticed that Paul John Hansen likes to participate in the following FaceBook group, having posted his last note only about an hour ago:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/suijurislaw/
Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

One of the first things I see on that FB is a PDF document (uploaded by Sutherland and then commented on by Hansen) for 22 ways to void a judgment. It was clearly done up in Illinois and the citation style is clearly amateurish. Some of the reasons given are, I think, only workable in Illinois, and some are so trifling that the judge will allow the opposition to make the correction nunc pro tunc, or even make the correction himself.

The rest of the page is the usual poisonous snake oil which, if tried in court, could turn into a very ugly but memorable lesson that total and anonymous strangers are not the best source of legal strategy.

THe FB page also had a link to the NLA's letter to every federal judge in the US. It doesn't exactly tell them to do anything, except to inform them that doing anything against "the common law", the Magna Carta, and the Holy Bible is treason. http://www.abeldanger.net/2014/08/8-25- ... ce-to.html

[Paths of the Sea]

I do not know if this is the same Hansen.

I think they are the same.

I remember seeing a case, as I recall, where Hansen tried to represent Hovind (the trust deal) and the Court would not let him. I think that must be the case.

As far as I know, Paul John Hansen is not a lawyer as that term is commonly understood. However, when he claims to be a lawyer he may have a different meaning in mind.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

Just found this 2011 article about Hansen which includes references to his "lawyer" claim:

http://www.kvnonews.com/2011/10/anti-go ... forcement/

(excerpt-caption of picture)

"A self-described 'free inhabitant,'
Paul John Hansen represents himself
in court, signing legal documents
'Lawyer / Counsel without the United States'."

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Famspear]

A self-described 'free inhabitant,'
Paul John Hansen represents himself
in court, signing legal documents
'Lawyer / Counsel without the United States'.

It's more like this:

Paul John Hansen.... Reality Challenged......
...without a driver's license.....
.........without respect for law....
................without competence to pontificate about law......
......................without any of Mom's Common Sense..................

[Samphire]

Paul John Hansen.... Reality Challenged......
...without a driver's license.....

In Britain, if the police pull you over and you do not have a licence then the chances are that you won't have car insurance either without which (and such details are immediately available on computer to the police) the car will be immediately confiscated and you will have to make alternative arrangements to get home. If you have borrowed your mum's car to go out for the evening then that is your mum's bad luck.

If you then fail to produce your licence and car insurance documents to the police within the following 7 days the car will be permanently confiscated and sent off to the crusher. It doesn't make any difference if it is a 10 year old Ford or a brand new Ferrari, they will both go the way of all metal.

Even if you manage to produce the required documents to the police within the time limit it will still cost you £200 plus £20 a day to get the car released back to you. That's about $450 in green money.

With many police cars now fitted with automatic car plate recognition equipment it is a risky thing to drive without a licence and/or car insurance. Furthermore, there is a network of static car plate recognition equipment now being established throughout the country which will make it pretty much guaranteed that, if you transgress the rules, you will be caught.

I assume that in the States any such similar system would be restricted to cars with plates issued by the state in which the car is stopped and could not be extended to a federal system.

[Gregg]

Umm, let's see...

Behind Door Number 1,
You give us the information we need to buy you a plane ticket to come down and answer some questions for us, we get you a comfortable hotel room while you're here and even give you free meals and a per diem....when we're done why buy you a ticket to fly home.

Or Door Number 2,

You ride on the plane handcuffed to a Federal Marshal, you stay in a jail cell, the food is still free but you don't get to pick what you want, and when we're done we escort you out the front door of the courthouse where you can hitchhike back home or join the local homeless community. Oh, and they only have basic cable in the jail, whereas most hotels have Free HBO plus Pay-per-View.


And the odds are better than even the idiot goes with Door Number 2.

[JamesVincent]

In Britain, if the police pull you over and you do not have a licence then the chances are that you won't have car insurance either without which (and such details are immediately available on computer to the police) the car will be immediately confiscated and you will have to make alternative arrangements to get home. If you have borrowed your mum's car to go out for the evening then that is your mum's bad luck.

If you then fail to produce your licence and car insurance documents to the police within the following 7 days the car will be permanently confiscated and sent off to the crusher. It doesn't make any difference if it is a 10 year old Ford or a brand new Ferrari, they will both go the way of all metal.

Even if you manage to produce the required documents to the police within the time limit it will still cost you £200 plus £20 a day to get the car released back to you. That's about $450 in green money.

With many police cars now fitted with automatic car plate recognition equipment it is a risky thing to drive without a licence and/or car insurance. Furthermore, there is a network of static car plate recognition equipment now being established throughout the country which will make it pretty much guaranteed that, if you transgress the rules, you will be caught.

I assume that in the States any such similar system would be restricted to cars with plates issued by the state in which the car is stopped and could not be extended to a federal system.

Here it's a little bit different and may vary state by state. In MD. driving without a license is an arrestable offense left up to the officer's discretion, up to a $500 fine, then the judge has the discretion to add more. If you have a revoked license then it gets even worse, up to $1,000 fine and a year in jail. A suspended license is around the $500 range and 30 days in jail. Even if he doesn't arrest you you will still be ticketed, no longer an option for the officer, and you will be ordered to report to the courthouse within 3 days to get your paperwork. If you have a valid license but don't have it on you still a ticketable offense, $25 IIRC.

Any one of those offenses the officer has the option of impounding your vehicle. $100 impound fee plus around $50/ day storage depending on the tow company. The company will not release the vehicle if it does not have valid tags, insurance, or if you don't have a license. Then you have to have another tow company pick it up for you. The only time a vehicle is seized and not returned is if you are on a motorcycle and get a DWI, then after the second(?) time they seize the bike and you don't get it back, they auction it off.

None of this takes into account the fees charged by DMV to get your license straight, including a required safe driver course which runs around $150.

Not having insurance will cost you $150 for the first month and $7/ day afterward in fines from DMV for everyday the vehicle has tags and you don't have it insured, even if the vehicle is stationary or not driveable.

We also have the cruisers equipped to run tags while the officer drives down the road but have yet to implement the static cameras, except we have red light cameras and speed cameras. Both of which attach the fines to the vehicles registration and not the driver. So if you don't pay the fine they suspend your registration so you can't legally drive.

[Paths of the Sea]

May it be so soon!

From Paul John Hansen's website:

http://www.pauljjhansen.com/?page_id=27

- WHERE AM I
-
- I, Paul Hansen, gets arrested occasionally
- for standing against intrusive government.
-
- If you are not getting a response back from
- my email it is highly likely I am in jail.
-
- There are two main reasons people go to
- jail in the United States:
-
-- one is for violating US written law,
-
-- the other is for holding fast to the
-- liberty to live as a “free inhabitant”
-- as the term is found in Article 4 of
-- the Articles of Confederation 1777.
-
- See also my other site – freeinhabitant.info.

---------------------------------------------------------

[Paths of the Sea]

Action on Hovind's attempt to appeal criminal contempt proceeding!

The federal district court handling his criminal contempt charge and trial now scheduled for November 3, 2014 has already advised Kent Hovind that his attempt to appeal the court's order regarding the criminal contempt charge and trial will not delay the district court proceedings (apparently because the order is non-appealable/frivolous).

Now it looks like Kent's attempted appeal is on the verge of dismissal unless it be the case that he is serious about continuing his sovereign citizen course of making as much paper work as possible; this time around possibly with the assistance of his public defender.

(Note: Kent's public defender, it appears, may be subject to disciplinary action depending on what action might now follow.)

We will see!

Filed September 3, 2014

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING
56 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

John Ley Clerk of Court

September 03, 2014

Kent E. Hovind
Santa Rosa County Jail
PO BOX 7129
MILTON, FL 32572

Appeal Number: 14-13570-C
Case Style: USA v. Kent Hovind District Court
Docket No: 3:06-cr-00083-MCR-EMT-1

Pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 42-1(b) you are hereby notified
that upon expiration of (14) days from this date, this appeal will
be dismissed by the clerk without further notice unless the default(s)
noted below have been corrected:

Pay to the DISTRICT COURT clerk the docketing and filing fees,
with notice to this office, or request leave to proceed in forma
pauperis on appeal in the district court.

See Fed.R. App.P. 24(a).

If the district court denies such leave, appellant may file in this
court a Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis in this court with
a financial affidavit.

11th Cir. R. 42-1(b) also provides that

"If an appellant is represented by appointed counsel,
the clerk may refer the matter to the court for possible
disciplinary action against counsel in lieu of dismissal."

Sincerely,
JOHN LEY
Clerk of Court

--------------------------------------------------------------

[Paths of the Sea]

Kent Hovind, in his latest posted update, writes regarding his criminal contempt proceedings:

- "I (Kent Hovind) have filed an appeal
- and a win there stops all this."

It was previously noted that the criminal contempt order was non-appealable, and it appears the 11th Circuit, in documents posted today, have taken note of that and are poised to dismiss Hovind's frivolous attempt at an appeal (in keeping with typical sovereign citizen tactics to flood the system with paper to deal with).

Filed Today, September 10, 2014

Page #1

Case: 14-13570 Date Filed: 09/10/2014

JURISDICTIONAL QUESTION

Explain whether the district court's July 8, 2014 order granting the government's renewed motion for an order to show cause why Hovind should not be held in criminal contempt is a final, appealable order or is otherwise immediately appealable.

See 28 U.S.C. section 1291 (stating this court has jurisdiction to review final decisions of the district courts); Thomas v. Blue Cross & Blue Shield Ass'n, 594 F.3d 814, 818 (11th Cir. 2010) (holding the denial of a motion for an order to show cause why a party should not be held in contempt is a final order); but see Broussard v. Lippman, 643 F.2d 1131, 1133 (holding a district court order that contemplates further substantive proceedings in the case is not final and appealable).

Page #2

Case: 14-13570 Date Filed: 09/10/2014

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE ELEVENTH CIRCUIT

ELBERT PARR TUTTLE COURT OF APPEALS BUILDING
56 Forsyth Street, N.W.
Atlanta, Georgia 30303

John Ley
Clerk of Court
September 10, 2014

Kent E. Hovind
Santa Rosa County Jail
PO BOX 7129
MILTON, FL 32572

Appeal Number: 14-13570-C
Case Style: USA v. Kent Hovind
District Court Docket No: 3:06-cr-00083-MCR-EMT-1

NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED: August 7, 2014

After review of the district court docket entries, order and/or judgment appealed from, and the notice of appeal, it appears that this court may lack jurisdiction over this appeal.

If it is determined that this court is without jurisdiction, this appeal will be dismissed.

The parties are requested to simultaneously advise the court in writing within fourteen (14) days from the date of this letter of their position regarding the jurisdictional question(s) set forth on the attached page.

Counsel must submit their response electronically, and do not need to provide paper copies. The responses must include a Certificate of Interested Persons and Corporate Disclosure Statement as described in Fed.R.App.P. 26.1 and the corresponding circuit rules.

Requests for extensions of time to file a response may not be entertained.

After fourteen (14) days, this court will consider any response(s) filed and any portion of the record that may be required to resolve the jurisdictional issue(s). Please note that the issuance of a jurisdictional question does not stay the time for filing appellant's briefs otherwise provided by 11th Cir. R. 31-1.

Sincerely,
JOHN LEY
Clerk of Court

---------------------------------------------------

[Paths of the Sea]

Kent Hovind lost another one!

(I don't think this has been noted before.)

Some may recall that Kent had sued his South Carolina keepers; alleging they caused him to fail to timely file something or another because they didn't forward his box of goodies to him soon enough.

Looks like that didn't go anywhere, and I don't think I noticed it earlier when last month the Court disposed of that case as shown below:

0:13-cv-01177-MGL Date Filed 08/19/14

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
for the District of South Carolina

Civil Action No. 0:13-cv-01177-MGL-PJG

Kent E. Hovind,
Plaintiff

v.

William G. Anderson;
John Doe;
Mr. Dial; and
3 Unknown Named John Jane Doe,
BOP Employees,
Defendants

JUDGMENT IN A CIVIL ACTION

The court has ordered that the plaintiff, Kent E. Hovind, take nothing of the defendants, William G. Anderson and Mr. Dial, and this action is dismissed with prejudice as to those defendants;

the plaintiff, Kent E. Hovind, take nothing of the defendants, John Doe and 3 Unknown Named John Jane Doe, BOP Employees, and this action is dismissed without prejudice as to those defendants.

This action was decided by the Court, the Honorable Mary G. Lewis, US District Judge, presiding.

The Court having adopted the Report and Recommendation of US Magistrate Judge Paige J. Gossett, granted defendants Anderson and Dial’s motion to dismiss with prejudice and, dismissed defendants John Doe and 3 Unknown Named John Jane Doe without prejudice.

Date: August 19, 2014

ROBIN L. BLUME
CLERK OF COURT
s/ G. Mills
Signature

[LPC]

What on earth does "take nothing of the defendants" mean?

In the second instance, I'm not even sure it's grammatical, but it makes no sense to me in either context.

[Pottapaug1938]

What on earth does "take nothing of the defendants" mean?

In the second instance, I'm not even sure it's grammatical, but it makes no sense to me in either context.

I remember that phrase from law school. It essentially means that the plaintiff will take nothing which is in the possession of the defendant or two which the defendant has rights -- namely, money and lots of it. It would be better rendered as "take nothing from the defendants".

[JamesVincent]

If I'm reading this correctly since the first part, with the named defendants, is with prejudice he cannot attempt that action again. The second part is without prejudice so he would be able to try the John/ Jane Doe suit again, yes?