Kent Hovind Since Sept 2013

[Paths of the Sea]

I'm intrigued by the semi-literate Ernie Land.

What is with that?

Ernie Land posted an update (a link to Gea's presentation of more of Kent's 11/11/2014 interview with Matthew) to his legal defense fund, but he has yet to contribute himself and have his contribution noted on the website.

The fund is right where it left off yesterday; $380.00, of which $250.00 came from Peter J Reilly and $100.00 came from Kent's Canadian girlfriend Gea.

What scheming must be going on regarding that legal defense fund and how Ernie and the boys are really going to finance a private lawyer for Kent, if they actually do it.

http://www.youcaring.com/other/kent-hov ... und/261659

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

Just noticed that Ernie appears to have a FaceBook page:

https://www.facebook.com/ernest.land1

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

[darling]

He has an identical English twin brother to be seen at:

http://tinyurl.com/ogqm46o

One of them is a comedic character but I am not sure which.

"Making a cup of coffee is like making love to a beautiful woman. It's got to be hot. You've got to take your time. You've got to stir... gently and firmly. You've got to grind your beans until they squeak..." - Ernie Land

[wserra]

I don't think that Doc Fogbound has made either a lot of coffee or a lot of whoopee.

[Paths of the Sea]

Interview with Kent Hovind posted yesterday. The interview with Kent starts at about the 13:00 minute mark.

http://diggingforthetruth.podomatic.com ... 8_45-08_00

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

Forbes' Peter J. Reilly responds to some of his critics in this latest report on the Hovind case!

http://www.forbes.com/sites/peterjreill ... -ministry/

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Samphire]

In one of the recent telephone recordings Kent refers to having paid $6,000 for the trial transcript.

Has he ever released this document for public viewing? It does not seem to be one of the pdf's on his 2Peter3 website. Perhaps it has the same Top Secret status as his "doctoral" theses.

Kent also claims in the conversation and not for the first time that the transcript was doctored either by the Judge or a court minion but I have never heard him expand on what particular wording was doctored and how the change might have affected the trial outcome. Does any Qualoosian have any information on this?

[darling]

In one of the recent telephone recordings Kent refers to having paid $6,000 for the trial transcript.

That's funny, it was only $4,500 last year. Extrapolating back, he got it for free.

Has he ever released this document for public viewing? It does not seem to be one of the pdf's on his 2Peter3 website.

Part of it is here:
http://www.2peter3.com/Court_Docs/Trial ... script.pdf

Kent also claims in the conversation and not for the first time that the transcript was doctored either by the Judge or a court minion but I have never heard him expand on what particular wording was doctored and how the change might have affected the trial outcome. Does any Qualoosian have any information on this?

"When I finished the judge used everything I said that day as evidence that I had "still not learned " and had not "accepted responsibility" for my "crime" and gave me an "upward departure" from the "recommended guidelines" which added about 5 extra years in prison I believe. She even said my "crime" was "worse than rape" but those comments of hers were deleted from the sentencing transcript"

[Paths of the Sea]

In that most recent interview (there's supposed to be another one today), Kent claims towards the end that he doesn't know anything about his wife's U.S. Tax Court case.

I have had some personal experience with that issue and I think I can safely propose that Kent falsely represented what he knows or should know about his wife's U.S. Tax Court case.

Following are excerpts from my personal correspondence with Kent about just that matter.

I report, you decide!

(1)

From: KENT E HOVIND (06452017)
Date/Time: 1/26/2013 5:17:49 PM

I know nothing of Jo’s tax court decision…

(2)

To: Kent Hovind
Date/Time: 1/26/2013 5:45:05 PM

By the way, would you care to try and convince (me)
as to why it is you might be uninformed regarding
Jo’s recent U.S. Tax Court decision?

(3)

From: KENT E HOVIND (06452017)
Date/Time: 1/26/2013 11:13:01 PM

I can’t get on the internet here but would love to
see the recent ruling in my wife’s case.

Can you send that please?

(4)

To: Kent Hovind
Date/Time: 1/26/2013 11:22:01 PM

Following my name below is the text of Jo’s entered
decision, which followed a written opinion from the
Court.

In effect, Jo was deemed to be liable for the tax on
50% of the ministry income, plus the penalties and
interest. Total of something over $3.5 million tax,
penalty and interest according to my rough estimates.

By the way, you haven’t tried to convince me why it
may be the case that you are unaware of Jo’s case.

What’s up with that?

(5)

To: Kent Hovind
Date/Time: 1/28/2013 8:50:28 AM

Before going on to possible new matters, let’s review some
old matters and your latest messages, and see how they go.

You haven’t tried to convince me, as I have repeatedly asked,
why it is you were unaware of Jo’s U.S. Tax Court decision.

How could you not have known about that recent decision?

(6)

From: admin@inmatemessage.com
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:04:29 -0600

The above-named inmate has chosen to remove your email
address from his/her approved contact list and, therefore,
can not receive or send messages to your email address.

———————————————————————-

[Samphire]

In one of the recent telephone recordings Kent refers to having paid $6,000 for the trial transcript.

That's funny, it was only $4,500 last year. Extrapolating back, he got it for free.

Has he ever released this document for public viewing? It does not seem to be one of the pdf's on his 2Peter3 website.

Part of it is here:
http://www.2peter3.com/Court_Docs/Trial ... script.pdf

Kent also claims in the conversation and not for the first time that the transcript was doctored either by the Judge or a court minion but I have never heard him expand on what particular wording was doctored and how the change might have affected the trial outcome. Does any Qualoosian have any information on this?

"When I finished the judge used everything I said that day as evidence that I had "still not learned " and had not "accepted responsibility" for my "crime" and gave me an "upward departure" from the "recommended guidelines" which added about 5 extra years in prison I believe. She even said my "crime" was "worse than rape" but those comments of hers were deleted from the sentencing transcript"

Thanks, darling, but the document you refer to is the transcript of the sentencing hearing whereas I am trying to find the transcript of the actual trial.

[Samphire]

In effect, Jo was deemed to be liable for the tax on 50% of the ministry income, plus the penalties and interest. Total of something over $3.5 million tax, penalty and interest according to my rough estimates

Maury, is the figure of 50% correct? I understood that Jo & Kent were each found liable for the full amount of the outstanding tax, penalties etc. Am I wrong?

[Paths of the Sea]

Maury, is the figure of 50% correct? I understood that Jo & Kent were each found liable for the full amount of the outstanding tax, penalties etc. Am I wrong?

I am pretty confident that that is correct. I can check later to confirm it or maybe someone else will.

It was a whipsaw situation where the SND included the full amount to both sides (Kent & Jo).

The Tax Court decided that Jo was, effectively, Kent's "partner" and so gave her a break and judged her liable for her half of the profits while at the same time ruling that Kent was liable for the full amount. Not an unusual result considering. In the long run, the Government should only collect the full amount once and not duplicate amounts. Of course, there is no realistic prospect that the Government will come close to collecting anything near the amount due.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[notorial dissent]

I think time, and the facts, have proven that Kent is willfuly ignorant of things or anything that is inconvenient to or for Kent. I think it is a pretty safe conclusion that on just about any given point to assume that he is lying and be done with it. The only thing Kent is concerned with is Kent and his self perceived standing in the world, and no thing or one else counts above that.

[Paths of the Sea]

Part of it is here:
http://www.2peter3.com/Court_Docs/Trial ... script.pdf

I think that is part of the transcript from the sentencing hearing which is quite a different animal from a trial. People are allowed to say just about anything and are not subject to cross examination; though Eric came close to being cross examined. I think the Court and prosecutor were longsuffering in letting Kent's people tell their tales.

The trial transcript, I would claim, is where you find the presentation of the evidence and testimony that clearly convicts Kent of the crimes alleged. So much so that Kent dared not offer any defense because the last thing he wants to do is testify under oath and be cross examined.

Kent is bragging about testifying this time around, but I think he is also posturing for not doing so because he is also claiming that the chances of being acquitted are rather small (which is how it should be). He's pushing for jury nullification.

I hope I am wrong that if the case goes to trial that Kent will finally take the stand, affirm to tell the truth, testify, be cross-examined, and be thoroughly impeached as was the case with Doreen Hendrickson recently as to her criminal contempt problem.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[notorial dissent]

I think Kent would do well to avoid putting himself in a position where he can be asked anything under oath, and he obviously knows it. I think that is why he may go with a PD or outside counsel this time, to avoid having to come anywhere near the witness chair.

[Samphire]

Part of it is here:
http://www.2peter3.com/Court_Docs/Trial ... script.pdf

So much so that Kent dared not offer any defense because the last thing he wants to do is testify under oath and be cross examined.

My apologies for crossing swords again but, with the very greatest respect m'lud, I think that may be incorrect.

At the lunch recess on the final day of the original trial the defence told the judge that they would be back after lunch to present their case. Clearly, over lunch a discussion took place during which the defence attorneys agreed with each other that there was no case to answer and advised Kent & Jo accordingly. I think Kent had been raring to go into the witness box after lunch to start his prating, prattling and preaching and I am sure that his attorney was more afraid of how Kent's performance would be perceived by the the jury than he was of the case presented by the prosecution.

To some extent I agree with notorial that Kent is lying but differ in that I don't think Kent knows he is lying. Reality for Kent is whatever Kent wants it to be and for Kent the government is lying, the IRS are lying, the judge should be impeached and Abe Lincoln should be shot for treason. The only honest men are himself, Glen Stoll and Paul Hansen. Even his own defence attorney cannot be trusted because he owes his future job prospects to the court.

There is a stunning statement by Kent in his jail interview of the 19th in which he says:

I don’t understand what a trust is. I don’t understand this legal stuff or this trust stuff. That’s Paul Hansen’s expertise and that’s what he did and that’s what Glen Stoll has done since 1982. Properly structured trusts exactly according to the law. They may not like the law; well, OK, don’t just arrest somebody - go to Congress and change the law.

A man who claims to know the law better than anybody in the US (other than Paul Hansen) and science better than any Nobel prize winner or Eric Hovind not only cannot understand the relatively simple principles involved in Trust law but then proceeds to hand over to a convicted criminal and untrained "lawyer" (a man he has never even met) control over his and his wife's entire wealth. Even the court doesn't think Kent is really that stupid by already having noted that Kent may have signed over the deeds of his properties but kept control of the cheque book.

Here's a short extract from next January's trial transcript:

Q. "Mr.Hovind the person you appointed as sole Trustee of the CSE Trust was Glen Stoll. Who later appointed Paul Hansen as sole Trustee? It couldn't have been you as you had already handed over total control of the Trust to Stoll. Did Stoll appoint Hansen and, if so, where's the deed evidencing the appointment?"

A: "I don’t understand what a trust is. I don’t understand this legal stuff or this trust stuff. That’s Paul Hansen’s expertise and that’s what he did and that’s what Glen Stoll has done since 1982. Properly structured trusts exactly according to the law. You may not like the law; well, OK, don’t just arrest somebody - go to Congress and change the law."

Guns, fish and barrels come to mind.

[Samphire]

In that most recent interview (there's supposed to be another one today), Kent claims towards the end that he doesn't know anything about his wife's U.S. Tax Court case.

Yes - but he goes further by saying "That I don’t know about. I don’t know what the order is for her to do or what she is doing about it. I’m obviously keeping this separate as I don’t want to drag her into anything.”

So kudos to Kent for keeping his wife out of trouble. But perhaps not. Jo's attorney in her tax trial was insistent on having his client heard in a separate trial to Kent's. It was Jo who wanted Kent as far out of the way as possible. Unfortunately for Jo, the strategy had no effect on the outcome.

In any event, Jo's case is over and beyond further appeal so there is nothing much Kent could now do to drag her back into court. And even if he could what possible harm could there be to either party in Kent knowing what had happened in Jo's trial? Complete idiocy.

Kent also claims that when he gets out of jail he probably won't be staying in Escambia County. May be so. But I would wager a few bob that Jo won't be jemmied away from her grandchildren to go with him.

[Paths of the Sea]

Kent also claims that when he gets out of jail he probably won't be staying in Escambia County. May be so. But I would wager a few bob that Jo won't be jemmied away from her grandchildren to go with him.

I get the impression that Gea is ready to go wherever Kent goes.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

(W)hat possible harm could there be to either party
in Kent knowing what had happened in Jo's (tax) trial?

It would be nice to press Kent on that matter, but I don't think we are going to be able to do that.

It is curious how that example, where I demonstrate Kent's alleged ignorance of his wife's case, his being informed of the details, and his current renewed claim of ignorance, goes to showing how Kent is inclined to invoke ignorance when it serves his purpose and when folks know better how it impeaches his testimony and credibility.

Many other such examples could be given.

It reminds me of something Hansen talked about in that Summer of 2014 interview that posted the other day.

That is, Hansen seemed to be claiming that a key to successfully executing his legal strategies was to not answer questions, go on the offensive, and ask instead of be asked.

So, in hindsight, despite the pretensions, Kent seems inclined to follow that tactic and not answer questions except those he chooses to his advantage and part of not answering questions involves the additional tactic of simply claiming ignorance and in the case of his many legal activities that he never was notified by the Court about this or that.

Samphire, in Kent's recent interview he claimed that his U.S. Tax Court case was still on appeal even though the 11th Circuit affirmed the Tax Court last month. Does Kent claim ignorance of that. I don't think he said; just that it was still on appeal. So, I am wondering what he knows about that and if he was implying he's taking his Tax Court case to the Supreme Court (only to be denied cert).

It continues to be a curiosity that Kent claims such ignorance while also claiming to have a "legal dream team" representing him (less 1 member now).

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[notorial dissent]

It's easy, Kent is a lying liar, and once you accept and acknowledge that it all falls in to place. Kent is not concerned about anyone one or thing but himself, and it is just becoming more and more apparent as this progresses.