Kent Hovind Since Sept 2013

[Paths of the Sea]

KENT HOVIND LOSES AGAIN

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
DISTRICT OF NEW HAMPSHIRE

Civil No. 14-cv-62-JL

Kent E. Hovind

v.

FCI Berlin

O R D E R

(excerpts)

The petitioner, Kent E. Hovind, is serving a ten-year sentence at the Federal Correctional Institute in Berlin, New Hampshire, following his conviction on all counts of a 58-count indictment.

The indictment charged that Hovind:

willfully failed to deduct and pay federal income and withholding taxes for employees of his business, Creation Science Evangelism Enterprises, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7202;

structured the business’s cash withdrawals, totaling more than $1.5 million over a four- or five-year period, into increments of less than $10,000 to avoid federal reporting requirements, in violation of 31 U.S.C. § 5324; and

obstructed the administration of the internal revenue laws, in violation of 26 U.S.C. § 7212(a).

Hovind, proceeding pro se, has filed a petition in this court for a writ of habeas corpus, invoking 28 U.S.C. § 2241.

The petition is before this court for preliminary review...to determine whether it plainly appears from the petition and its exhibits that Hovind is not entitled to the relief he seeks.

The Bureau of Prisons (“BOP”) has recommended that Hovind serve the last six months of his incarcerative sentence in home confinement, but has declined to transfer him to a residential re-entry center (“RRC”), also known as a community correctional facility (“CCF”) or “halfway house,” for the six months prior to that (i.e., the first six months of the final twelve months of his sentence).

Hovind points out that the Second Chance Act of 2007...directs the BOP “to the extent practicable, ensure that a prisoner serving a term of imprisonment spends a portion of the final months of that term (not to exceed 12 months), under conditions that will afford that prisoner a reasonable opportunity to adjust to and prepare for the reentry of that prisoner into society.

Hovind also invokes U.S.C. § 3621(b), under which the BOP “shall designate the place of [a] prisoner’s imprisonment” as “any available penal or correctional facility . . . that the Bureau determines to be appropriate and suitable, considering” five enumerated factors.

As a consequence, Hovind argues, “each individual inmate’s pre-release RRC decision must be analyzed and supported under the five-factor criteria” set forth in § 3621(b), “with the understanding that he/she is now eligible for a maximum of 12 months pre-release RRC placement” under § 3624(c).

What is missing from Hovind’s petition, however, is any allegation that the BOP failed to do so in recommending that he complete the incarcerative portion of his sentence with six months of home confinement, rather than six months at an RRC followed by six
months of home confinement.

To the contrary, in rejecting Hovind’s administrative appeal from this decision, which was originally made by his “Unit Team” at FCI-Berlin, the BOP stated that the team had “considered [Hovind’s] individual situation, programming, and transitional needs pursuant to the [] criteria” set forth in § 3621(b), which the statement identified as relevant considerations under the Second Chance Act.

Likewise, in explaining the decision of the “Unit Team,” the warden of FCI-Berlin wrote that they had relied on Hovind’s “strong family ties, lack of substantial transitional
needs, and overall low risk assessment” in recommending he serve six months of home confinement without first serving six months in a halfway house. Hovind, who has attached these materials to his petition, makes no claim that the BOP did not, in fact,
consider the § 3621(b) criteria.

Instead, he cites to a BOP memorandum from April 2008 (just after the Second Chance Act took effect) stating that “inmates’ pre-release RRC needs can usually be accommodated by a placement of six months or less,” as well as alleged public comments by the BOP’s director in July 2008 that “any time in an RRC beyond six months is not productive.”

Whatever these statements indicate about the BOP’s attitude toward RRC placements in general, however, that view plainly had no impact on the BOP’s decision as to where Hovind should serve the last twelve months of his incarcerative sentence.

The BOP did not assign Hovind to an RRC for six months--it assigned him to home confinement for six months.

And § 3624(c)(2) specifically provides that “[t]he authority under this subsection may be used to place a prisoner for home confinement for the shorter of ten percent of the term of imprisonment of that prisoner or 6 months.”

The only restriction that § 3624(c) places on the exercise of that authority is that the BOP, “to the extent practicable, ensure[s] that [the] prisoner . . . spends a portion of the final months of that term (not to exceed 12 months) under conditions that will afford that prisoner a reasonable opportunity to adjust for and prepare for the reentry of that prisoner into the community.”

As the Court of Appeals has remarked in interpreting the prior version of this statute (which limited these “conditions” to 6 rather than 12 months), § 3624(c) gives the BOP “virtually unlimited discretion to place inmates wherever it deems appropriate,” provided it “considers the five factors” set forth in § 3621(b).

Again, Hovind does not allege that the BOP failed to consider those factors, nor does he allege that its resulting decision to assign him to six months of home confinement, rather than six months in an RRC followed by six months of home confinement, represents an abuse of this “virtually unlimited discretion.”

Accordingly, while 28 U.S.C. § 2241 gives this court jurisdiction to consider a petition for a writ of habeas corpus claiming that the BOP has violated 18 U.S.C. §§ 3621(b) or 3624(c) in determining how the petitioner will serve the last year of his incarcerative sentence, see id., Hovind’s petition fails to make any such claim.

Because it appears from the petition and its exhibits, then, that Hovind is plainly not entitled to relief from the BOP’s decision to assign him to six months in home confinement without first assigning him to six months in a halfway house, the petition is dismissed.

SO ORDERED.

Joseph N. Laplante
United States District Judge
Dated: April 16, 2014

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

[notorial dissent]

So, as per usual, Kent's complaint was not that someone had "actually" violated his rights or in this case, not followed the rules, but that the mean old prison system hadn't let him do what he wanted to do, and he has a mad on about it. And he stamped his foot really really hard and tried to hold his breath, and no one cared or really noticed. Looks like his bunky's legal acumen is really working out for him.

Bet we'll see a similar result in his great defamation suit, providing it gets past the judge to start with that is.

[Paths of the Sea]

The DOJ filed its brief in Kent's Tax Court appeal today.

Try this link for possible access to the document:

https://docs.google.com/file/d/0B2e4-pm ... wdVE4/edit

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[Dr. Caligari]

So Hovind first told the Tax Court that he didn't want to proceed with his case, and then told the 11th Circuit that the Tax Court shouldn't have listened to him? Is this all part of his, "Help! I'm being oppressed!" schtick?

[LPC]

Looking at Hovind's brief and the DOJ brief, you wonder if they are from the same case, because they seem to address completely different issues and completely different facts.

Hovind's brief is mainly about his relationship to CSE, whether or not he is a "minister" exempt from certain taxes, and whether it was fair to dismiss his Tax Court case while he was in prison.

The DOJ's brief is mainly about whether the Tax Court abused its discretion to dismiss the petition and enter judgment against him, which relates secondarily to whether Hovind was given adequate opportunities to prosecute his case while in prison. The "minister" and other substantive arguments are largely ignored as having been waived by not being raised in the Tax Court pleadings.

So if you held up the two briefs side by side, you'd find very little in common between them.

I suspect that the DOJ has the better judgment about what arguments are likely to prevail, and has made the better arguments.

[notorial dissent]

If the Appeal is about the Tax Court dismissing the case, after Hovind told them to, and those are the issues DOJ is addressing, and Hovind is off on some tangent about him being a minister and in jail, then I would say it was the DOJ that was responding to the case under discussion, and Hovind just wasting paper again. I suspect this will very quickly end up as anothr check mark in his long column of losses.

[Paths of the Sea]

If the Appeal is about the Tax Court dismissing the case, after Hovind told them to, and those are the issues DOJ is addressing, and Hovind is off on some tangent about him being a minister and in jail, then I would say it was the DOJ that was responding to the case under discussion, and Hovind just wasting paper again.

I suspect this will very quickly end up as another check mark in his long column of losses.

I don't think the Tax Court action in disposing of the Hovind case can be properly characterized as a dismissal.

The Tax Court entered a decision against Hovind after he failed to prosecute his case.

The DOJ notes in its brief that Hovind had earlier tried to get his case dismissed; perhaps because of a falling out with his lawyer and realization that the Tax Court was not inclined to play the games Hovind wanted to play.

So the Tax Court refused to simply dismiss the case and, ultimately, rendered its decision.

If the Tax Court had dismissed the case the result would have been the same as the ultimate decision that was rendered. I don't know if Hovind realizes that or not.

I also think the appellate court will relatively quickly resolve the appeal by sustaining the Government's position.

From a sovereign citizen point of view, Hovind may be winning in that he has prolonged the Tax Court case and has put the DOJ to the trouble of defending the Tax Court decision; and this is just one of many frivolous cases generated by Hovind in his continuing effort to strike back.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[notorial dissent]

Sorry, I misspoke, was thinking one thing and wrote something else. Kent basically shot himself in the foot and now wants a do over, and the mean ole gubmint isn't playing. I think you are also right, in that the end result would have been the same regardless of his actions, but his actions are consistent with everything else he has done, so it should be no surprise.

[grixit]

So has Kent lost his kneemail account?

[operabuff]

I don't think the Tax Court action in disposing of the Hovind case can be properly characterized as a dismissal.

The Tax Court entered a decision against Hovind after he failed to prosecute his case.

The DOJ notes in its brief that Hovind had earlier tried to get his case dismissed; perhaps because of a falling out with his lawyer and realization that the Tax Court was not inclined to play the games Hovind wanted to play.

So the Tax Court refused to simply dismiss the case and, ultimately, rendered its decision.

If the Tax Court had dismissed the case the result would have been the same as the ultimate decision that was rendered. I don't know if Hovind realizes that or not.

I also think the appellate court will relatively quickly resolve the appeal by sustaining the Government's position.

From a sovereign citizen point of view, Hovind may be winning in that he has prolonged the Tax Court case and has put the DOJ to the trouble of defending the Tax Court decision; and this is just one of many frivolous cases generated by Hovind in his continuing effort to strike back.

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

It's a dismissal. The court never considered the merits of Hovind's case. It entered a decision based on Hovind's evident abandonment of the case. Dismissing a case is not inconsistent with entry of a decision - the court had jurisdiction and it needed to resolve the case.

On a separate note, isn't it time to find a new name for this thread, since as of tomorrow, it will cover seven months of postings about Hovind?

[wserra]

On a separate note, isn't it time to find a new name for this thread, since as of tomorrow, it will cover seven months of postings about Hovind?

Picky, picky, picky. And there's more than one way to skin a cat.

[Samphire]

From page 17 of the Revenue's brief:

The additions to the tax asserted against Hovind were for fraudulent failure to file returns (I.R.C 6651(f)....

Fraudulent failure? Do those two words spell the end of Hovind's libel suit?

[LPC]

I don't think the Tax Court action in disposing of the Hovind case can be properly characterized as a dismissal.

The Tax Court entered a decision against Hovind after he failed to prosecute his case.

The DOJ notes in its brief that Hovind had earlier tried to get his case dismissed; perhaps because of a falling out with his lawyer and realization that the Tax Court was not inclined to play the games Hovind wanted to play.

So the Tax Court refused to simply dismiss the case and, ultimately, rendered its decision.

If the Tax Court had dismissed the case the result would have been the same as the ultimate decision that was rendered. I don't know if Hovind realizes that or not.

It's a dismissal. The court never considered the merits of Hovind's case. It entered a decision based on Hovind's evident abandonment of the case. Dismissing a case is not inconsistent with entry of a decision - the court had jurisdiction and it needed to resolve the case.

There are two different kinds of dismissals, and the difference has to do with principles of res judicata.

I think that Hovind thought that he could withdraw his petition and get it dismissed *without* prejudice, so that he could litigate again later, in another court. That may be possible under Tax Court Rule 53 ("MOTION TO DISMISS"), which states that "A case may be dismissed for cause upon motion of a party or upon the Court’s initiative."

The Tax Court wasn't going to allow that, and the government moved to dismiss *with* prejudice under Rule 123(b), which states in relevant part:

Dismissal: For failure of a petitioner properly to prosecute or to comply with these Rules or any order of the Court or for other cause which the Court deems sufficient, the Court may dismiss a case at any time and enter a decision against the petitioner.

Which is what the Tax Court did.

So Hovind will never be able to litigate his liabilities for those tax years again.

On a separate note, isn't it time to find a new name for this thread, since as of tomorrow, it will cover seven months of postings about Hovind?

Every time I look at the title of the thread, I think we're talking about the last six (or seven) months of Hovind's life.

I hope no one objects if I change it to something more durable.

[Paths of the Sea]

Fraudulent failure?

Do those two words spell the end of Hovind's libel suit?

I do hear that the RW folks were glad to see the brief make reference to "fraud" and its derivatives.

There's a new interview with Hovind that posted yesterday:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rXdS8fY0f7o

It sounded to me like his NPD is now in its advanced stages. He has a lot to say, in a rather general way, about his cases. His interview starts at about the 00:01:30 mark and ends about 15 minutes later (prison calls being limited to 15 minutes).

Sincerely,
Maury Enthusiast!

[operabuff]

I think that Hovind thought that he could withdraw his petition and get it dismissed *without* prejudice, so that he could litigate again later, in another court. That may be possible under Tax Court Rule 53 ("MOTION TO DISMISS"), which states that "A case may be dismissed for cause upon motion of a party or upon the Court’s initiative."

The Tax Court wasn't going to allow that, and the government moved to dismiss *with* prejudice under Rule 123(b), which states in relevant part:

Dismissal: For failure of a petitioner properly to prosecute or to comply with these Rules or any order of the Court or for other cause which the Court deems sufficient, the Court may dismiss a case at any time and enter a decision against the petitioner.

Which is what the Tax Court did.

So Hovind will never be able to litigate his liabilities for those tax years again.

Just to be clear, TC Rule 53 simply provides that the parties may move to dismiss. Rule 123 describes the results of a dismissal. For res judicata purposes, dismissals are treated as being on the merits, except for dismissals for lack of jurisdiction. Rule 123(d). So once the court had jurisdiction, there was no longer a "dismissal without prejudice" available.

This, by the way, is why the court "remands" innocent spouse cases and cdp cases back to respondent when it wants the IRS to reconsider its administrative findings. Once the court has jurisdiction, there is no option to dismiss the case and allow the petitioner to refile if he's unhappy with the result of the administrative reconsideration. The "remand" procedure allows the court to retain jurisdiction. I put quotes around the term "remand" because there is nothing in the statute or in the court's rules providing for a remand back to the IRS.

[Samphire]

At 2:40 in the latest Mark Harrison/Kent Hovind telephone discussion:

Now that God has sent me a team up here that is just phenomenal to help me finally get some justice…

At 4:25 in the discussion:

I took my own money out of my own bank to pay my own bills.

From page 20 of the IRS brief:

He asserted, inter alia, that he and his wife did not own CSE, that its income was not theirs, and they were not required to report its income.

I wonder how Team Phenomenal reconciles these last two statements.

[Jeffrey]

I took my own money out of my own bank to pay my own bills.

Is there some other way of paying bills I'm not aware of?

[webhick]

I took my own money out of my own bank to pay my own bills.

Is there some other way of paying bills I'm not aware of?

To take someone else's money out of their bank to pay their bills. I basically do it all the time. Gleefully. Then I proudly declare, "I spent all your money. See ya next week."

[Paths of the Sea]

Kent Hovind v. U.S. (Status Report)

https://www.facebook.com/2peter3/posts/638893926187350

- From: Kent Hovind
- Posted: May 1, 2014
-
- (excerpt)
-
- I have LOTS still going in
- the courts on 5 different issues!

Typically, Kent doesn't get into the details, so I will try to lay it out!

#1 - 11th Circuit Court of Appeals (from U.S. Tax Court)

Briefs were recently filed. I predict the Court of Appeals
will sustain the determination of the U.S. Tax Court.

#2 - New Hampshire suit against Bureau of Prisons

Case was dismissed by federal district court on April 18, 2014

#3 - Florida suit against RationalWiki

Hovind complaint filed February 24, 2014 and is awaiting
action by the judge. Service has not been made on
RationalWiki. The case may or may not be allowed to
proceed because it may be deemed to be frivolous on
its face.

#4 - Florida Criminal Case

The only matters that appear to be yet resolved involve
the property forfeited to the Government by Kent Hovind
as a result of his criminal activity. Hovind has tried to
thwart the Government's sale of the property, with some
success. The case appears to be awaiting action by the
judge on the matters remaining open, including the
prospect that Hovind may be charged with criminal
contempt and may be facing additional prison time as
a result.

#5 - South Carolina suit against Bureau of Prisons

Awaiting a decision by the judge on the recommendation
that the case be dismissed. The recommendation was
made, Hovind objected, and the Government has responded
to the objection. I predict the case will be dismissed.

Kent Hovind has also filed various non-judicial complaints
against judges and prosecutors involved in his case. There
is no indication that any of these civil matters will result
in any change to Hovind's case or that any judge or
prosecutor will be subject to any substantive discipline
as a result of their actions in the Hovind cases.

(Feel free to note any necessary changes or corrections.)

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

[Paths of the Sea]

Mark Harrison, Kent Hovind's recent telephone interviewer, explains why we haven't been hearing any recent broadcast of Hovind interviews:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vEsq_MmnbI0

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