Dear Kent: About your “Dear PZ”…

Kent Hovind sent out a challenge to PZ Myers.

While I enjoyed PZ’s response I thought a few more things needed to be said as well as clarified on the subject.  Some of you may feel that jumping on the unique ride that is the Kent Hovind Experience may have been done to death

hqdefault

but personally, I find that sometimes revisiting the past has great merit and worth (be it six, six thousand  or six billion years ago).

“In your post you said I go home from prison in August, 2015. This is incorrect. I go to Pensacola Feb. 2015 at the LATEST. There are several suits in the various federal courts I could win and bills in congress that could make it much sooner. “

Potential modifications of that release date due to lawsuits, natural disasters and zombie attacks do not change the fact that your (Kent’s) release date on the Federal Bureau of Prison’s website is shown as August 2015.  Unless you can show documentation to contradict what the Federal Bureau of Prisons is stating is your release date then you are in error in your assertion that PZ is incorrect.

BOP

“5. The lawsuit against “Rational”* Wiki is NOT “planned.” It is filed in the Federal Court for the Northern District of Florida Case #3:14cv94/RV/CJK and is on their web site and 2peter3.com. “

I’m not clear on what you mean by “planned”. Do you mean this lawsuit happened by accident? Did you trip on the pattern of the papier mache dinosaur-riding Jesus and happen to stumble into a county clerk’s office where in an attempt to steady yourself, your flailing hands knocked into a pen which scribbled out the complaint on the appropriate forms followed by a blow to your stomach that caused you to regurgitate the filing fee?

In the future please try to make sense when you’re responding.

 “7. I am NOT in prison for “tax fraud.”

From “United States of America v Kent Hovind and Jo Hovind” 

(BEGIN VERY LONG AND BORING LEGALESE QUOTE)

B. CHARGE

That on or about the dates specified below, in the Northern District of Florida, the defendant,

KENT E. HOVIND

a resident of Pensacola, Florida, who owned and operated CSE in Pensacola, Florida and as such, was the person responsible for collecting and paying over federal income tax and FICA tax for CSE, and who, during the quarters of the tax years specified below, did willfully fail to deduct, collect, truthfully account for and pay over to the IRS federal income tax and FICA tax from the total taxable wages of CSE employees which were due and owing to the United States of America, in the approximate amounts enumerated below, by failing to file the appropriate IRS Form 941, Employer’s Quarterly Federal Tax Return for CSE and on the due dates, and failing to withhold and pay federal income tax and FICA tax to the IRS.

COUNT

QUARTER ENDING

DUE DATE OF RETURN

TAX DUE AND OWING

ONE

March 31, 2001

April 30, 2001

$29,400

TWO

June 30, 2001

July 31, 2001

$33,757

THREE

September 30, 2001

October 31, 2001

$37, 482

FOUR

December 31, 2001

January 31, 2001

$31, 987

FIVE

March 31, 2002

April 30, 2002

$40, 889

SIX

June 30, 2002

July 31, 2002

$40, 889

SEVEN

September 30, 2002

October 31, 2002

$40, 889

EIGHT

December 31, 2002

January 31, 2003

$40, 889

NINE

March 31, 2003

April 30, 2003

$36,463

TEN

June 30, 2003

July 31, 2003

$44,967

ELEVEN

September 30, 2003

October 31, 2003

$46,653

TWELVE

December 31, 2003

January 31, 2004

$49,553

All in violation of Title 26 United States Code, Section 7202.

COUNTS THIRTEEN THROUGH FIFTY-SEVEN

That in the dates specified below, in the Northern District of Florida, the defendants,

KENT E. HOVIND
and
JO D. HOVIND

knowingly and for the purpose of evading reporting requirements of Section 5313(a) of Title 31, United States Code, and the regulations promulgated thereunder, structured, assisted in structuring, and caused to be structured the following transactions, each transaction being a cash withdrawal from AmSouth Bank, a domestic federally-insured financial institution:

COUNT

DATE OF CHECK

AMOUNT WITHDRAWN

THIRTEEN

July 20, 2001

$9,500

FOURTEEN

July 23, 2001

$9,500

FIFTHTEEN

July 26, 2001

$9,500

SIXTEEN

August 2, 2001

$9,500

SEVENTEEN

August 10, 2001

$9,500

EIGHTEEN

August 23, 2001

$9,500

NINETEEN

August 31, 2001

$9,500

TWENTY

September 7, 2001

$9,500

TWENTY-ONE

September 11, 2001

$9,500

TWENTY-TWO

September 18, 2001

$9,500

TWENTY-THREE

September 19, 2001

$9,500

TWENTY-FOUR

September 27, 2001

$9,500

TWENTY-FIVE

October 04, 2001

$9,500

TWENTY-SIX

October 10, 2001

$9,500

TWENTY-SEVEN

October 19, 2001

$9,500

TWENTY-EIGHT

October 23, 2001

$9,600

TWENTY-NINE

November 2, 2001

$9,600

THIRTY

November 7, 2001

$9,600

THIRTY-ONE

November 19, 2001

$9,600

THIRTY-TWO

November 28, 2001

$9,600

THIRTY-THREE

December 5, 2001

$9,600

THIRTY-FOUR

December 11, 2001

$9,600

THIRTY-FIVE

December 28, 2001

$9,600

THIRTY-SIX

December 31, 2001

$9,600

THIRTY-SEVEN

January 11, 2002

$9,600

THIRTY-EIGHT

January 18, 2002

$9,600

THIRTY-NINE

January 22, 2002

$9,600

FORTY

February 2, 2002

$9,600

FORTY-ONE

February 13, 2002

$9,600

FORTY-TWO

February 20, 2002

$9,600

FORTY-THREE

February 26, 2002

$9,600

FORTY-FOUR

March 6, 2002

$9,600

FORTY-FIVE

March 8, 2002

$9,600

FORTY-SIX

March 11, 2002

$9,600

FORTY-SEVEN

March 25, 2002

$9,600

FORTY-EIGHT

April 19, 2002

$9,600

FORTY-NINE

May 10, 2002

$9,600

FIFTY

June 13, 2002

$9,600

FIFTY-ONE

July 1, 2002

$9,600

FIFTY-TWO

July 17, 2002

$9,600

FIFTY-THREE

July 22, 2002

$9,600

FIFTY-FOUR

July 29, 2002

$9,600

FIFTY-FIVE

August 2, 2002

$9,600

FIFTY-SIX

August 6, 2002

$9,600

FIFTY-SEVEN

August 9, 2002

$9,600

All in violation of Title 31, United States Code, Sections 5324(a)(3) and 5324(d), Title 31, Code of Federal Regulations, Section 103.11, and Title United States Code, Section 2.

COUNT FIFTY-EIGHT

1. Part A of Counts One through Twelve is hereby realleged as if fully set forth herein.

2. That between in or about March 1996 up to and including the dates of the return of this indictment, in the Northern District of Florida, the defendant,

KENT E. HOVIND,

did corruptly endeavor to obstruct and impede the due administration of the internal revenue laws by acts which include the following:

a. Filing a petition for bankruptcy, and falsely listing the IRS as his only creditor, for the sole purpose of discharging this debt and forcing the IRS to release seized property;

b. Filing a false and frivolous lawsuit against the IRS in which he demanded damages for criminal trespass and other false allegations during the IRS execution of a lawful court-issued search warrant;

c. Filing a complaint for a preliminary injunction against an investigation IRS special agent and the Commissioner of the IRS;

d. Making threats of harm to those investigating him and to those who may consider cooperating with their investigation;

e. Filing a false complaint against investigating IRS agents with the Treasury Inspector General for Tax Administration;

f. Filing a criminal complaint against investigating IRS special agents falsely alleging, among other things, false arrest, false imprisonment, excessive use of force, and theft or property;

g. Destroying records; and,

h. Paying his employees in cash and labeling them “missionaries” rather than employees to avoid payroll tax and Federal Insurance Contributions Act requirements.

All in violation of Title, United States Code, Section 7212(a).

CRIMINAL FORFEITURE

1. The allegations contained in Counts Thirteen through Fifty-Seven of this Indictment are hereby realleged and incorporated by reference for the purpose of alleging forfeitures to the United States.

2. Upon convictions of any of the violations alleged in Counts Thirteen through Fifty-Seven of this Indictment, the defendants,

KENT E. HOVIND
and
JO D. HOVIND,

Shall forfeit to the United States, pursuant to Title, United States Code, Section 982(a)(1) and Title 31, United States Code, Section 5317(c), any and all property, real and personal, involved in the offense alleged in Counts Thirteen through Fifty-Seven and any property traceable thereto.

3. If any of the property described above as being subject to forfeiture, as a result of any act or omission of the defendants:

a. cannot be located upon the exercise of due diligence;

b. has been transferred or sold to, or deposited with, a third person;

c. has been placed beyond the jurisdiction of the Court; and,

d. has been substantially diminished in value; or has been commingled with other property which cannot be subdivided without difficulty; it is the intent of the United States pursuant to Title 18, United States Code, Section 982(b)(1) and Title, United States Code Section 5317(c)(1)(B), to seek forfeiture of any other property of said defendants up to the value of the above-described property.

All in violation of Title 18 United States Code, Section 982(a)(1) and Title 31, Untied States Code, Section 5217(c).

(END OF VERY LONG AND BORING LEGALESE QUOTE)

On November 2, 2006, (you) Kent Hovind was found guilty by a jury on all counts.

One could possibly conclude that this all came about due to incompetence and not deliberate fraud but an examination of your actions during the bankruptcy proceedings shows that you acted with full intent and deliberate malice to defraud the United States government.

So yes Kent, you were found guilty of tax fraud because you are guilty of tax fraud.

“(7 continued) In the unlikely even you actually are interested in the truth I suggest you go to http://www.2peter3.com in the legal section and read the complaint I filed with the Committee on Conduct in the federal court in Denver against the Assistant US Attorney in my case-Michelle M. Heldmyer. Filed Dec. 19 , 2013- Case #14-CC-1. It has the 3 items I was charged with spelled out clearly for all to see. “

Three items? You mean 58 counts, all of which you were found guilty of.

 “I did NOT break any laws but the government probably did.”

 These sorts of statements are why it was determined you’re a tax protester and not just a minister who didn’t understand religious exemption and tax law.

“She has not responded yet but her reply to my complaint should be very interesting!”

Probably it will be the same reply you got last time when your initial complaint was examined and dismissed.

“(7 continued) Please show me from the 3 charges in my case where I was charged with “fraud” as you allege or apologize for lying about me.”

I refer you again to count 58 which contains language such as:

did corruptly endeavor”, “falsely listing”, “Destroying records” and “Paying his employees in cash and labeling them “missionaries” rather than employees to avoid payroll tax and Federal Insurance Contributions Act requirements” all of which clearly states that you were willfully engaging in tax fraud. Just because the exact words “is doing tax fraud” aren’t there doesn’t mean they aren’t charging you with the crime of tax fraud.

Let me get really technical for a moment on you here Kent:

There’s this “thing” you can do in languages where you can use “other words” to describe something.

If a policeman writes in a report;

“And then the driver’s vehicle swerved into the SUV causing significant damage to the passenger door area.” but didn’t actually use the words “car accident”.

it doesn’t mean you can go tell your car insurance company;

“Hey, the cop didn’t actually write it was a “car accident” so you can’t say it was a car accident!”

I’m guessing this is why you have so much trouble with biological concepts like evolution. You lack the ability to comprehend the above. That sort of subtlety seems to be beyond you.

“8. I do not lie to children or anyone else as you falsely allege but you do.”

If you’re going about telling children you aren’t guilty of tax fraud then yes, you’re lying to them.

“(8 continued) Also please show me ONE specific case where you can prove I lied to children.”

Let’s test this claim.  How about the two of us get together along with some kids, then I’ll have one of the kids ask you if you’re guilty of tax fraud. How you answer can clear this one right up.

9. For those who would like to see you admit you are a fish and a relative of a banana (and several other dumb “confessions” you made on camera)…” 

 Cite source for confirmation please.

“11. CHALLENGE- PZ, When I get out and can travel I will come to your university at my expense and debate you on the evolution topic.” 

And give you the credibility of a debate with a biologist in a University setting? What exactly is in it for PZ?

Tell you what sunshine, why don’t you start off smaller. How about the two of us do some form of debate at a studio space that will be generously provided by me? Well, technically Google’s studios but I’d have to arrange it so it’s basically the same thing.

That way you’ll be standing in the same studio space that Neil DeGrasse Tyson has used and who knows, maybe he’ll even be passing by and you can get his autograph!

“(11 continued) Since you are using tax dollars to promote your religion and the burden of proof is on you I would like you to supply the 5 or 10 best evidences for evolution above the level of minor changes within kinds as the basis for the debate.”

I’d like you to supply evidence of one medication that’s on the FDA approved list that exists entirely because of your pseudo-science of creationism.

“12. You can have as many “assistants” on your side as you wish but I get 50% of the total time and we only discuss one topic at a time. I will also pay only you $150/hr up to a max of 3 hrs actual debate time.”

Considering the circumstances? Normally I’d charge more to cover the cost of my spent time but I think I can accept this.

 

“15. You seem to love to promote your religion of evolutionism in class where you have an obvious psychological and academic advantage. You cannot fire me, fail me, intimidate me or bamboozle me. Marianne at psalm.37@live.com is keeping a list of any churches wishing to schedule me to speak and any evolutionists willing to debate me. Please contact her to get on the list.”

Let me get this straight:

You just said; “You seem to love to promote your religion of evolutionism in class where you have an obvious psychological and academic advantage” and end with; “Marianne at psalm.37@live.com is keeping a list of any churches wishing to schedule me to speak and any evolutionists willing to debate me. Please contact her to get on the list.”

So you just accused PZ of (nefariously I assume) controlling the venue for psychological advantage and immediately after that accusation state you keep a list of places you can debate that will give you a psychological advantage.

I’d appreciate it if you’d stop trying to be clever, Kent. I’m getting older and my irony meter isn’t what it used to be.

“16. If you DO NOT contact her within a reasonable time of say-30 days (April 9) – to tell her you are willing to debate (once a time can be worked out) I will presume (as will any REAL “rational” people) that you are a coward and do not intend to take me up on my offer.”

Flap your arms and make clucking noises all you want but these sorts of childhood tactics don’t work on many of us critical thinking adults.

“18. The God that you claim not to believe in loves you and told me I’m supposed to try.”

If this is the case then why do you spend your time being antagonistic and spreading anger, mistrust and hate? No offense but I’m really not into abusive relationships so if it’s all the same you may keep your God’s love to yourself.

Feel free to contact me at thetrupooka@gmail.com and we can have a debatapalooza. I would contact sweet Marianne but my wife takes exception to me writing to strange women at unverified websites so you’ll just have to settle for emailing me yourself.

Yours truly;

The Reverend Philip Rose A.K.A. TheTruePooka

Follow me on:

youtube: http://www.youtube.com/user/TheTruePooka

facebook: https://www.facebook.com/thetruepooka

Twitter: https://twitter.com/TheTruePooka

About these ads

3 thoughts on “Dear Kent: About your “Dear PZ”…

  1. Just thought I would let you know I saw your promo at PZ’s place and that I stopped by to take a look.

    I’m just a tyro, and Kent has been one of my hobbies for some time and I am particularly interested in his attempts to rebut his “structuring” conviction and his income tax case.

    I have had a couple of brief, direct encounters with Kent during the last year; in both instances he cut and ran. I’ve also managed to get Forbes contributor Peter J. Reilly interested in the Hovind cases, with emphasis on the tax matters, and he has posted a number of articles at forbes . com (search: Hovind) dealing with the Hovind cases.

    I am also a critic of young-earth creation-science, but that’s a little different matter.

    Sincerely,
    Robert Baty

  2. “I’m not clear on what you mean by “planned”. Do you mean this lawsuit happened by accident?”

    He means it’s not just planned, it’s actual (filed).

  3. On “planned”!

    PZ Myers in his article on the RationalWiki suit stated that Kent was “planning” to file lawsuits.

    I think Kent was just indicating, in response, that the RationalWiki suit was not “planned” in that sense.

    As I recall, it was relatively recently that I saw where someone had advised Kent of the RationalWiki article and in dealing with that the subject of libel came up and the prospects of a suit.

    It was shortly thereafter that Kent filed the RationalWiki suit.

    Just a little semantics. It had not been previously planned, but since the subject came up, it was planned and executed.

    That’s how I see it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s