Kent Hovind gets 10 years

[Dustin Kesselberg]

dustin:

If you read the indictment as you said you did, and if you agree that he is guilty as you failed to disagree with above, you would know that in order to be gulity he had to knowlingly commit the crime. Pertinent sections follow, bolded for emphasis.

I agree he willfully and knowingly committed the crimes but I doubt he believed they were legally 'crimes'.

Sort of like tax protectors know that if they don't pay taxes they will go to jail, But they still don't pay because they don't believe the 'laws' that force them to pay taxes are legally binding for one reason or another.

 

[Questioninggeller]

Someone made this Hovind video:

 

[Questioninggeller]

Before you post anymore, perhaps you should read my post. I never said I doubted he did it.

Where did I said you doubted he broke the law? You seem to have replied without realizing what I responded to.

My post was in reference to your last reply to me:

I doubt Hovind realizes anything he did was against the law or ever meant to commit a crime.

If he didn't realize it was against the law then how could he have:

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

http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_of_America_v_Kent_Hovind_and_Jo_Hovind

If someone is ignorant of the law how can they "knowingly evade requirements" or "willfully fail to deduct, collect, truthfully account" of monies?

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Someone made this Hovind video:

A big mess of various segments from some presentation he was doing cut off and on. What's your point?

 

[Questioninggeller]

A big mess of various segments from some presentation he was doing cut off and on. What's your point?

That wasn't a reply to you, it was a video some might be want to view. Above is a response to you. (If it was a reply it would have had context and a quote.)

 

[Questioninggeller]

Sort of like tax protectors know that if they don't pay taxes they will go to jail, But they still don't pay because they don't believe the 'laws' that force them to pay taxes are legally binding for one reason or another.

"Tax protestors" really believe they can challenge the IRS and win. That's why they do it; you should see their elaborate defenses. Research Irwin Schiff's four decade IRS battle, which will likely lead to him dying in prison. (Hovind sells Schiff's books.)

Moreover, look at Glen Stoll's past and how he is involved in Hovind's business scheme. His name came up in a decision issued against Hovind in summer 2006 (in a different tax case than this criminal one). The judge used the phrase "bizarre arguments" (as noted in the clip you viewed). (Search for Stoll's name in this document: http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/Hovind.TCM.WPD.pdf)

Anyway, look at the 45 counts of structuring withdrawals, his obstruction charge, suing the IRS ( http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind_v_Commissioner_of_Internal_Revenue ), or 1996 false bankruptcy trial ( http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Hovind_Bankruptcy_Decision ). Fine evidence he knew the about the laws, but thought he wasn't going to be prosecuted.

Hovind has been told the law repeatedly and he has knowingly lied. He thinks he's above the law. I quote the 1996 judge's decision:

...
...the debtor represents that he is an evangelist employed by God and that he receives no income, has no expenses, owns absolutely no property, and has no creditors except for the IRS with a claim of $10,602.31...
...
The debtor having failed to file his federal income tax returns for at least the years 1989 through 1995, having resisted collection efforts by the IRS, and having provided false information in his schedules and statement of affairs in connection with this case, I find that the debtor filed this petition in bad faith and as such the petition is subject to dismissal for cause under the provisions of 11 U.S.C. 1307(c)...

and from the November 2006 trial

...attorney David Charles Gibbs testified that Hovind claimed he had no obligation to pay employee income taxes and explained with "a great deal of bravado" how he had "beat the tax system." Gibbs is an attorney with the Gibbs Law Firm, also is affiliated with the Christian Law Association, a nonprofit organization founded by his father that offers free legal help to churches nationwide in a suburb of St. Petersburg, Florida. Gibbs attended the Marcus Pointe Baptist Church when Hovind was a guest speaker at the church on October 17, 2004. Hovind invited Gibbs and others to Hovind's home for pizza and soda.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Evangelist_Kent_Hovind's_tax_trial_begins

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Where did I said you doubted he broke the law? You seem to have replied without realizing what I responded to.

My post was in reference to your last reply to me:



If he didn't realize it was against the law then how could he have:



http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/United_States_of_America_v_Kent_Hovind_and_Jo_Hovind

If someone is ignorant of the law how can they "knowingly evade requirements" or "willfully fail to deduct, collect, truthfully account" of monies?

You're contorting what I said. When I said I doubt Hovind realizes anything he did was against the law or ever meant to commit a crime, I did not mean that he was not aware what he was doing was not a "supposed law" but that he did not believe it was legally a law being a tax protester and all.

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

"Tax protestors" really believe they can challenge the IRS and win. That's why they do it; you should see their elaborate defenses. Research Irwin Schiff's four decade IRS battle, which will likely lead to him dying in prison. (Hovind sells Schiff's books.)

Many tax protesters don't believe that taxable income is constitutionally legal. Hovind selling Schriff's book is evidence he's one of them.

Moreover, look at Glen Stoll's past and how he is involved in Hovind's business scheme. His name came up in a decision issued against Hovind in summer 2006 (in a different tax case than this criminal one). The judge used the phrase "bizarre arguments" (as noted in the clip you viewed). (Search for Stoll's name in this document: http://www.ustaxcourt.gov/InOpHistoric/Hovind.TCM.WPD.pdf)

So?

Anyway, look at the 45 counts of structuring withdrawals, his obstruction charge, suing the IRS ( http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind_v_Commissioner_of_Internal_Revenue ), or 1996 false bankruptcy trial ( http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/The_Hovind_Bankruptcy_Decision ). Fine evidence he knew the about the laws, but thought he wasn't going to be prosecuted.

You're still not getting my argument. I never meant to imply he didn't 'know about the laws'.

Hovind has been told the law repeatedly and he has knowingly lied. He thinks he's above the law. I quote the 1996 judge's decision:



and from the November 2006 trial



http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/Evangelist_Kent_Hovind's_tax_trial_begins

I don't see how this goes against what I said.

 

[AgingYoung]

Pity God didn't tell him to pay up on his taxes.

God did.

Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose [is] this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

God says to pay your taxes.

Gene

 

[Big Les]

Tony, I think you're confusing the quite legitimate grounds on which Hovind was jailed, with the gleeful and vindictive responses of some sceptics who have felt that his deceitful approach to dressing up outdated religous dogma as an alternative to science deserved some kind of punishment, and despite supporting freedom of speech, might secretly (if wrongly) have wished he could be suppressed in some way to avoid further indoctrination of those not in a position to think themselves around it.

That said, I regardless feel that the correct response is still along the lines of:

"YES, HAH! In your face bible-boy, it's chokey for you!".

But that's just me...

 

[AgingYoung]

I really love that expression, 'that being said'. My uncle Eddie uses that expression a lot. That being said I'd really like to know what in the hell did you say?

To this point could you clarify the idea of ....

• his deceitful approach to dressing up outdated religous dogma

what particular 'outdated religious dogma' or 'teaching' are you referring? Thank you in advance for your obvious sage perspective.

Gene

 

[Cuddles]

what particular 'outdated religious dogma' or 'teaching' are you referring? Thank you in advance for your obvious sage perspective.

He's a creationist.

 

[brodski]

Many tax protesters don't believe that taxable income is constitutionally legal. Hovind selling Schriff's book is evidence he's one of them.

Possibly, however the usual tax protestor MO is to present "evidence" of the unconstitutional nature of taxation, or the illegality or irrelevance of the 16th amendment.
Hovind offered no defence whatsoever. Even if Hovind really truly believed that taxing him was illegal, that doesn’t make him any less of a thieving bastard. If he "truly believed" that burglary was legal, if he started breaking into peoples homes and robbing them, he would still be a thieving bastard, regardless of his wacky legal theories.
To borrow a phrase from South Park, the fact that he doesn’t pay his takes makes him a "douche", the fact that he really believes that he is exempt from takes make shim a "stupid douche".
Wesley Snipes appears to have fallen firmly into the second category. And I will cheer if he gets sent down to (regardless of his opinions on geology and biology).

 

[Liken]

He's a creationist.

That said ....he's also a troofer, anti-environmentalist, anit-vaxer...the list goes on. Really. In Hovind's case ALL his beliefs are deeply tied to his own paranoid, ignorant brand of religious zealotry. You don't have to be a "sage" to realize that much, Agingyoung. Just do some digging.

I challenge you to check out out http://kent-hovind.com/ ,read some of the things Hovind is on record saying, and then come back here to defend your insinuation that he's neither deceitful or outdated in his thinking.

 

[Chris Haynes]

How many cases of Tax evasion have you posted in this forum before? Is this the only one? I wonder why that is.

Actually, I posted about Glen Stoll, but only in regards to Kent Hovind. Why do you wonder why I posted about tax evasion on this thread? Have you not read the title of this thread to get a clue as to the subject?

If it were actually his tax evasion that caused you to post then why just Kent Hovind? Why not any other random Tax evader? Obviously his beliefs and media status played a role otherwise you would not of posted it.

Read the title of the thread... Check out the title of this sub-forum (it is not in Politics!). Note that Glen Stoll has been mentioned in this thread by myself and others.

Trust me, I have the same opinion towards other tax evaders despite whatever fairy tales they think are "true". Try reading for comprehension my rant here: http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2283945&postcount=146 ... now remember when I say "people like Kent Hovind" I am referring to all tax evaders.

If you wish to start a thread about other tax evaders... go for it! Except, if you do it in the Political subform I will most likely miss it.

 

[Big Les]

He's a creationist.

Yep, that's about the size of it Gene. I take it you don't agree?

My last post reads like something the Architect from the Matrix films would say. Sorry about that; put it down to too much coffee.

Put simply, Hovind has been rightly busted for something he did wrong. I dislike lots of other things he's done wrong that he can't easily be busted for. Therefore, I'm chuffed that he's at least being busted for something. A bit like Al Capone was I suppose, as I think someone pointed out before.

That make more sense?

 

[Questioninggeller]

You're contorting what I said. When I said I doubt Hovind realizes anything he did was against the law or ever meant to commit a crime, I did not mean that he was not aware what he was doing was not a "supposed law" but that he did not believe it was legally a law being a tax protester and all.

No, I am not "contorting" what you said. It was a direct quote from your original statement its not my fault that either 1) you were vague to begin with, or 2) modified your statement after being proved wrong.

Many tax protesters don't believe that taxable income is constitutionally legal. Hovind selling Schriff's book is evidence he's one of them.

This argument cuts both ways. You can't prove what Hovind "believes" nor can I.

However, we have his statements, which shows his belief system is not based on his belief that he believes he's right (notably he wanted to comply with the IRS). See below:

You're still not getting my argument. I never meant to imply he didn't 'know about the laws'.

I "got" your original argument. However, your newest argument that Hovind "believes" is not provable as compared to your original claim that he didn't "know." (You modified your claim to "believes", I think, for that reason.) You directly said he was ignorant of the law.

Hovind was told the law as early as 1996, but he choose not listen to the government or any of the other people who tried to correct him (see the court case for witnesses on that).

I would love to see your evidence that Hovind believes he's in the right. Afterall Hovind's excuses changed throughout the time in court:

First he said: did not recognize the government's right to try him on tax-fraud charges and didn't own property. (See God for his motorcycle title and house deed.)

then: he does not have to pay the taxes because his employees were "volunteers," "missionaries" or "ministers" and his business was a ministry.

then: He tried to get exempt status, and comply with the laws, but the IRS never explained how. (Here he puts the blame on the IRS.)

So if he believes Glen Stoll's trust scheme is legal, why give a reason that his money is for God not the tax money?

Or if he does believe it is really for God only, why say he try to say he wanted to comply with the laws?

I guess your question can boil down to one claim: Does Hovind really believe he doesn't own property? Property is what this is about. No, I don't think that can be argued, especially, after listening to him hiding his assets from jail.

Hovind on his motorcycle, sorry I mean, God's motorcycle:

 

[Chris Haynes]

....Put simply, Hovind has been rightly busted for something he did wrong. I dislike lots of other things he's done wrong that he can't easily be busted for. Therefore, I'm chuffed that he's at least being busted for something. A bit like Al Capone was I suppose, as I think someone pointed out before.
...

Actually there are several other people and organizations that are promoting the same ideas he did, but they actually are not breaking any laws. These would include the "Discovery Institute", "Answers in Genesis" and the Institute for Creation Research.

I did a search on www.pandasthumb.org on "tax evasion" and it came up with 24 hits, which seemed to all be about Kent Hovind (I did not actually look closely at each hit, mostly scanned the two pages).

 

[AgingYoung]

That said, I regardless feel that the correct response is still along the lines of:

"YES, HAH! In your face bible-boy, it's chokey for you!"....

You certainly take it correctly. There's no way your response above is a rational one.

Gene

 

[Dustin Kesselberg]

Possibly, however the usual tax protestor MO is to present "evidence" of the unconstitutional nature of taxation, or the illegality or irrelevance of the 16th amendment.
Hovind offered no defence whatsoever. Even if Hovind really truly believed that taxing him was illegal, that doesn’t make him any less of a thieving bastard. If he "truly believed" that burglary was legal, if he started breaking into peoples homes and robbing them, he would still be a thieving bastard, regardless of his wacky legal theories.
To borrow a phrase from South Park, the fact that he doesn’t pay his takes makes him a "douche", the fact that he really believes that he is exempt from takes make shim a "stupid douche".
Wesley Snipes appears to have fallen firmly into the second category. And I will cheer if he gets sent down to (regardless of his opinions on geology and biology).

He probably thought he didn't have much of a chance with that defense.