Kent Hovind Since Sept 2013

[tmtoulouse]

Did that 3rd party happen to be Dave Foda or traceable to Dave? He's one of my correspondents and a RationalWiki contributor of some sort to whom I sent a copy of the Complaint last night.

Yes, Dave posted it to our Facebook group. As I said, we have not been officially served yet.

[Paths of the Sea]

At this point, Kent is pretty much judgment-proof.

I realize that, but it would be something else to hang around his neck as a reminder and just in case he happens to win the fund-raising lottery and is caught with some cash on hand.

Who knows, maybe the Court could even find Kent vexatious and sanction him so that he would not be allowed to file any new actions without approval of the Court in advance.

Also, remember that the U.S. Tax Court imposed found that the Government had met its burden of proof, found there was fraud, and imposed the civil fraud penalty on both Kent and his wife.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

Yes, Dave posted it to our Facebook group.
As I said, we have not been officially served yet.

Neato!

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Paths of the Sea]

Interesting chatter from the RationalWikians:

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/RationalWi ... nd_Sues_Us

[Paths of the Sea]

Some more views on the developing story:

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyngula/ ... in-prison/

[wserra]

Some thoughts on the latest Hovind coprolite:

(1) It's not at all clear that a Florida court will be able to acquire jurisdiction over RationalWiki if it is in fact based in New Mexico. Even assuming that Hovind's residence is there and not in New Hampshire (where he is currently incarcerated), a USDC sitting in diversity applies the longarm statute of the forum state. Does RationalWiki do enough business in Florida to have the constitutionally-required minimum contacts? I don't know. I do know that Hovind's only explanation - "the false and defamatory statements can be seen in the State of Florida" - is insufficient. Were that the standard, anyone posting anything in a public space on the internet could be sued anywhere, which is clearly not the law. Most places require that a plaintiff show that the online comments specifically target an in-state audience. There are constitutional issues to hauling someone across the country to respond to allegations in a jurisdiction with which the defendant lacks minimum contacts.

(2) At least Hovind takes a stab at addressing jurisdiction. He appears not to realize that 47 USC 230 even exists. Given my understanding of the way the Wikis operate, they are much closer to an "interactive computer service" than to an "information content provider". RationalWiki is therefore likely immune from suit (although the author, whoever that may be, is not).

(3) Hovind's complaint is that the RationalWiki article writes that he filed fraudulent liens to keep the govt from seizing his property; he disputes both that the liens were fraudulent and that he filed them.

The second of those claims is actually so stupid that it's funny. Hovind claims that he couldn't have filed them, since he was in jail when they were filed. He apparently forgot about this letter to the case agent, enclosing copies of the liens he signed. Which liens actually state that "Kent E. Hovind asks that this Memorandum of Lis Pendens be recorded as a lien", and were sent to the County Clerk of Escambia County, FL.

As to the first claim: Hovind notes that the District Court didn't find the liens "fraudulent". It is true that the opinion didn't use that word. Instead, the Court wrote that "Without question, [Hovind's] lis pendens were wrongfully filed" because the properties had already been forfeited and therefore no longer belonged to Hovind. The Court notes that Hovind's actions may well constitute a contempt, and invites the govt to file a proper order to show cause - which it has since done. But no, the Court did not use the word "fraudulent".

What a maroon.

[Paths of the Sea]

Wserra,

If they get to quibbling over jurisdiction, could Hovind maintain Florida as appropriate until such time as John Doe is identified as NOT being a Florida resident?

Also, on that point, I seem to recall that Liberty University got some traction on that issue in claiming that Janet Jenkins civil suit against it was in the wrong venue because Liberty University did not have the requisite contacts to Vermont. That's the case involving Liberty University's alleged involvement in the international conspiracy to kidnap Janet's daughter.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Dr. Caligari]

For purposes of diversity-of-citizenship jurisdiction, a prison inmate is deemed a citizen of the state where he last resided prior to his incarceration, not of the state where he is incarcerated. (I actually had to research that issue once.) So Hovind got one thing right. But personal jurisdiction is, as Wes pointed out, far more problematic. Not to mention that he is dead wrong on the merits.

[Paths of the Sea]

Genesis of a Libel Suit!

https://www.facebook.com/geena.ambrosia ... 9460470383

From: Kent Hovind
Via: "Gea Ambrosia"
Date Posted: February 24, 2014

(excerpts)

I have one more brand new suit filed
in the courts last week that I am VERY
excited about but .... I can't share that
one yet.

This one will really be interesting!

Many great generals had the simple
philosophy, "Attack! Always Attack!
Never let them get set!"

Alex has a great saying, "Huntins not
much fun when the rabbit's got a gun."

This latest suit was his idea and is pure
genius!

Details in a month or so on this one.

More suits in the pipeline.
It's fun being on the OFFENSE for a change!

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

[wserra]

More suits in the pipeline.
It's fun being on the OFFENSE for a change!

Well, Kent, that's exactly what "vexatious litigant" status was invented for.

[Paths of the Sea]

More suits in the pipeline.
It's fun being on the OFFENSE for a change!

Well, Kent, that's exactly what "vexatious litigant" status was invented for.

Maybe the RaionalWiki folks will get the chance to have that designation officially imposed on Kent.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[grixit]

Alex has a great saying, "Huntins not
much fun when the rabbit's got a gun."

True. But you are a rabbit without a gun so why are you trying to be the hunter?

[tmtoulouse]

I noticed on the docket for the case two entries:

Notice to Pro Se litigant KENT E HOVIND. (sdw) (Entered: 02/24/2014)

ACTION REQUIRED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Chambers of MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES J KAHN, JR notified that action is needed Re: 1 Complaint. (sdw) (Entered: 02/24/2014)

Can anyone help me understanding whats likely going on here? Is this all just standard process?

[Paths of the Sea]

I noticed on the docket for the case two entries:

Notice to Pro Se litigant KENT E HOVIND.
(sdw) (Entered: 02/24/2014)

ACTION REQUIRED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
Chambers of MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES
J KAHN, JR notified that action is needed
Re: 1 Complaint. (sdw) (Entered: 02/24/2014)

Can anyone help me understanding whats
likely going on here? Is this all just standard
process?

I think it is standard practice. Often times, it is possible to figure out what action they are waiting for. It is not clear this time, so I guess we will have to wait and see.

It may have something to do with Hovind's imperfect and perhaps frivolous filing.

Kent himself noted that he had not paid his filing fee, for instance. There may well be some things to do before even considering "service" to the defendant.

I am not a lawyer or the son of lawyer; just an interested tyro! )

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[The Observer]

Alex has a great saying, "Huntins not
much fun when the rabbit's got a gun."

True. But you are a rabbit without a gun so why are you trying to be the hunter?

Because he thinks he can fall back on the "it's duck season - no, it's rabbit season" ploy?

[Dr. Caligari]

I noticed on the docket for the case two entries:

Notice to Pro Se litigant KENT E HOVIND. (sdw) (Entered: 02/24/2014)

ACTION REQUIRED BY MAGISTRATE JUDGE: Chambers of MAGISTRATE JUDGE CHARLES J KAHN, JR notified that action is needed Re: 1 Complaint. (sdw) (Entered: 02/24/2014)

Can anyone help me understanding whats likely going on here? Is this all just standard process?

When a prisoner files a lawsuit in federal court as a pauper (without paying the filing fee), the court reviews the Complaint to see if it's frivolous before having it served on the defendants. 28 USC 1915A.

[Paths of the Sea]

When a prisoner files a lawsuit in federal court
as a pauper (without paying the filing fee), the
court reviews the Complaint to see if it's frivolous
before having it served on the defendants. 28 USC
1915A.

Kent said he was going to pay the fee.

Sometimes he has gone "pauper".
Sometimes not.

I guess we'll have to wait and see how that plays out in this case.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Arthur Rubin]

Some thoughts on the latest Hovind coprolite:

(1) It's not at all clear that a Florida court will be able to acquire jurisdiction over RationalWiki if it is in fact based in New Mexico. Even assuming that Hovind's residence is there and not in New Hampshire (where he is currently incarcerated), a USDC sitting in diversity applies the longarm statute of the forum state. Does RationalWiki do enough business in Florida to have the constitutionally-required minimum contacts? I don't know. I do know that Hovind's only explanation - "the false and defamatory statements can be seen in the State of Florida" - is insufficient. Were that the standard, anyone posting anything in a public space on the internet could be sued anywhere, which is clearly not the law. Most places require that a plaintiff show that the online comments specifically target an in-state audience. There are constitutional issues to hauling someone across the country to respond to allegations in a jurisdiction with which the defendant lacks minimum contacts.

I am not a lawyer, and you are, but my recollection is that directing the comments to the plaintiff's state is adequate for jurisdiction. Unfortunately, the only non-commercial blog case I recall had jurisdiction denied because the plaintiff's bad actions described were in a different state than the plaintiff then resided in, and the while (in dicta) the court might have found the comments directed to the state where the actions occurred, they were not directed to the state in which the plaintiff was then located.

In other words, although Hovind's "reasoning" that "the false and defamatory statements can be seen in the State of Florida" might be inadequate, the judge might find that "the false and defamatory statements were directed to and can be seen in the State of Florida" to be potentially accurate and adequate for jurisdiction.

[Paths of the Sea]

-
Kent Hovind Speaks - Today
Today's Interview from "Evangelist Gea"

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j2XnKE8- ... e=youtu.be

[wserra]

In other words, although Hovind's "reasoning" that "the false and defamatory statements can be seen in the State of Florida" might be inadequate, the judge might find that "the false and defamatory statements were directed to and can be seen in the State of Florida" to be potentially accurate and adequate for jurisdiction.

Take a look at the page. I don't see how a court could conclude that the writeup was specifically directed to the people of Florida. I don't have time to go through the cases now, but I have done so in the past. Simply mentioning Florida as a relevant place is not "directed to" that place. Remember International Shoe - there really are constitutional considerations.