Kent Hovind at the Supreme Court

[darling]

From that bastion of reporting excellence, World Net Daily, comes a story about my personal favorite tax denier, Kent Hovind:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=98757

Attorney Shawn Perez of Las Vegas, who worked on Hovind's Supreme Court filing, told WND the writ of certiorari, or petition, makes two arguments. One is that the structuring law does not apply, because the Hovinds never deposited or withdrew more than $10,000 on any one day. The 45 single bank transactions should be charged as one count, not as 45 separate violations of the law, the brief argues. Each transaction was charged as a criminal count, yet none of them, by themselves, constituted a violation of the law, it explains.

The other argument in the Supreme Court filing is that under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS must explain on a 1040 form what it plans to do with the answers it receives and indicate whether the response is voluntary or mandatory.

The chance of the Supreme Court accepting any case is slim, but Perez said he hopes the structuring argument will get the court's attention, because the justices took a hard look at money laundering in the past year.

"His case is really tough because he didn't present a defense (at trial)," Perez said. "You don't leave much room for argument on appeal."

As far as I can tell, Hovind's conviction had nothing to do with his personal income taxes: he was convicted for smurfing and for failure to withhold employee taxes.

So the 1040 argument is not only completely bogus, but totally irrelevant.

[Famspear]

From that bastion of reporting excellence, World Net Daily, comes a story about my personal favorite tax denier, Kent Hovind:
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php? ... geId=98757

Attorney Shawn Perez of Las Vegas, who worked on Hovind's Supreme Court filing, told WND the writ of certiorari, or petition, makes two arguments. One is that the structuring law does not apply, because the Hovinds never deposited or withdrew more than $10,000 on any one day. The 45 single bank transactions should be charged as one count, not as 45 separate violations of the law, the brief argues. Each transaction was charged as a criminal count, yet none of them, by themselves, constituted a violation of the law, it explains.

The other argument in the Supreme Court filing is that under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, the IRS must explain on a 1040 form what it plans to do with the answers it receives and indicate whether the response is voluntary or mandatory.

The chance of the Supreme Court accepting any case is slim, but Perez said he hopes the structuring argument will get the court's attention, because the justices took a hard look at money laundering in the past year.

"His case is really tough because he didn't present a defense (at trial)," Perez said. "You don't leave much room for argument on appeal."

As far as I can tell, Hovind's conviction had nothing to do with his personal income taxes: he was convicted for smurfing and for failure to withhold employee taxes.

So the 1040 argument is not only completely bogus, but totally irrelevant.

I agree. I believe Hovind was convicted of:

1. twelve counts of willful failure to collect, account for, and pay over Federal income taxes and Federal Insurance Contributions Act taxes under 26 USC 7202 (that involves a filing of Form 941 returns, not Form 1040).

2. forty-five counts of knowingly structuring transactions in Federally-insured financial institutions to evade the reporting requirements of 31 USC 5313(a), in violation of 31 USC 5324, 18 USC 2 and 31 C.F.R. sec. 103.11 (nothing much to do with Form 1040, at least not in the way described above).

3. one count of corruptly endeavoring to obstruct and impede the administration of the internal revenue laws under 26 USC 7212 (again, I fail to see a direct, material connection to Form 1040 in the way described in the WND article).

I haven't read Hovind's petition yet, though.

[LPC]

Attorney Shawn Perez of Las Vegas, who worked on Hovind's Supreme Court filing, told WND the writ of certiorari, or petition, makes two arguments. One is that the structuring law does not apply, because the Hovinds never deposited or withdrew more than $10,000 on any one day.

That really deserves a keyboard warning.

[Dezcad]

Petition is docketed:

No. 09-5043
Title:
Kent E. Hovind, Petitioner
v.
United States
Docketed: July 1, 2009
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Nos.: (07-10090, 07-10502)
Decision Date: December 30, 2008
Rehearing Denied: February 25, 2009

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 18 2009 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 31, 2009)


~~Name~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~~~~~~Address~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ~~Phone~~~
Attorneys for Petitioner:
Kent E. Hovind 06452-017
PO Box 725
Edgefield, SC 29824
Party name: Kent E. Hovind
Attorneys for Respondent:
Elena Kagan Solicitor General (202) 514-2217
United States Department of Justice
950 Pennsylvania Avenue, N.W.
Washington, DC 20530-0001
SupremeCtBriefs@USDOJ.gov
Party name: United States

[Dezcad]

Updated docket, extending time to file response:

No. 09-5043
Title:
Kent E. Hovind, Petitioner
v.
United States
Docketed: July 1, 2009
Lower Ct: United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
Case Nos.: (07-10090, 07-10502)
Decision Date: December 30, 2008
Rehearing Denied: February 25, 2009

~~~Date~~~ ~~~~~~~Proceedings and Orders~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
May 18 2009 Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due July 31, 2009)
Jul 22 2009 Order extending time to file response to petition to and including August 31, 2009.