In the News: Hovind's 'fight' continues in court

[jspa...@linuxquestions.net]

From the article:
----------------------------------------
Hovind doesn't have the look of a fighter. He was calm and detached Monday, leaning back in his chair as he watched the court proceedings through the thick-rimmed glasses on graying his temples. However, to a certain subset of the populace, Hovind has become a folk hero of sorts for his willingness to rail against the establishment. A young Earth creationist, Hovind's claim to fame has been attempting to poke holes in popularly-accepted notions such as evolution and an "old Earth."

It came as no surprise that he has been trying to poke holes in the legal process, though his success has been questionable. The grounds for many of Hovind's legal actions reportedly came from a cellmate in a New Hampshire prison camp whom allegedly Hovind described as a "legal genius."
-----------------------------------------

Read it at http://www.pnj.com/story/news/crime/2015/03/03/day-hovind-trial/24341107/



J. Spaceman

[RonO]

I realize that Hovind has brought this onto himself, but isn't 10 years
enough? There should be some type of system to protect the incompetent
from themselves. Hovind isn't killing anyone. He is a flake and likely
wouldn't know a valid argument if it hit him in the face two or three
times, but should someone be punished for being willfully incompetent?
What kind of loser would consistently fail and think that his cellmate
was a legal genius? Because of his legal antics in jail he could face
more charges, and he was almost out. Is there some precedent where an
organization like the ACLU could step in and help the guy in spite of
himself?

Ron Okimoto

[Nashton]

You seem tremendously occupied, even threatened by Hovind. Why is that?

[Kleuskes & Moos]

On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 08:34:04 -0400, Nashton wrote:

<snip>

>> I realize that Hovind has brought this onto himself, but isn't 10 years
>> enough? There should be some type of system to protect the incompetent
>> from themselves. Hovind isn't killing anyone. He is a flake and
>> likely wouldn't know a valid argument if it hit him in the face two or
>> three times, but should someone be punished for being willfully
>> incompetent? What kind of loser would consistently fail and think that
>> his cellmate was a legal genius? Because of his legal antics in jail
>> he could face more charges, and he was almost out. Is there some
>> precedent where an organization like the ACLU could step in and help
>> the guy in spite of himself?
>>
>> Ron Okimoto
>>
>>
> You seem tremendously occupied, even threatened by Hovind. Why is that?

He's been (in)famous for quite some time, on this newsgroup. I suspect
there's a good ol' enemy feeling somewhere. After all, the unit of irony
(millihovind) is named after him.

Besides, it's one thing to see him rail and rant against evolution, which
can be quite entertaining, seeing him get into (huge) legal trouble
because he mistook a cellmate for a legal genius evokes a degree of
sympathy.

Most folks here, i think, are happy to bitch-slap his ideas, but not the
man. And that includes me.

[J. J. Lodder]

Of course that is possible,
but you don't want to help a convicted criminal
who says that he will take up his criminal ways again
as soon as he is out,

Jan

[Carl Kaufmann]

"Legal genius" as a cellmate, eh? Who knew that Dunning-Kruger was
transitive? Clearly more research is needed.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 09:42:18 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Carl Kaufmann
<cwkau...@cox.net>:

>On 2015-03-03 23:36, jspa...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>> From the article:
>> ----------------------------------------
>> Hovind doesn't have the look of a fighter. He was calm and detached Monday, leaning back in his chair as he watched the court proceedings through the thick-rimmed glasses on graying his temples. However, to a certain subset of the populace, Hovind has become a folk hero of sorts for his willingness to rail against the establishment. A young Earth creationist, Hovind's claim to fame has been attempting to poke holes in popularly-accepted notions such as evolution and an "old Earth."
>>
>> It came as no surprise that he has been trying to poke holes in the legal process, though his success has been questionable. The grounds for many of Hovind's legal actions reportedly came from a cellmate in a New Hampshire prison camp whom allegedly Hovind described as a "legal genius."
>> -----------------------------------------
>>
>> Read it at http://www.pnj.com/story/news/crime/2015/03/03/day-hovind-trial/24341107/

>"Legal genius" as a cellmate, eh? Who knew that Dunning-Kruger was
>transitive? Clearly more research is needed.

Clearly.

I thought the word choice of the author of the article was
fascinating. "...popularly-accepted notions..."? Makes it
sound like a hairstyle...
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Walter Bushell]

In article <s3iefah21gqah20iu...@4ax.com>,

I'm not so sure. If one is afflicted in a domain by Dunning--Kruger
and cannot tell when one is incompetent then surely one cannot
judge well others particularly those who come up with arguements
whose conclusion you like.

--
Never attribute to stupidity that which can be explained by greed. Me.

[A.Carlson]

Yes, so threatened that he is actually suggesting that Hovind be
released despite himself. Do you by any chance ever stop and think
before you type or at least do so before you hit the send button?

FWIW Hovind is the type of clown that probably does far more harm than
good for his own cause. Sure there will always be the true believers
who will follow anything that nutters like Hovind dish out but there
is always plenty of lunacy that can be readily exploited that will
convince other, less irrational, creationists that perhaps there is
less to creationism than meets the eye and we are more than happy to
do our part. Hovind provides a good bad example.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2015-03-04 14:30:08 +0000, J. J. Lodder said:

> RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:
> [ … ]

>> I realize that Hovind has brought this onto himself, but isn't 10 years
>> enough? There should be some type of system to protect the incompetent
>> from themselves. Hovind isn't killing anyone. He is a flake and likely
>> wouldn't know a valid argument if it hit him in the face two or three
>> times, but should someone be punished for being willfully incompetent?
>> What kind of loser would consistently fail and think that his cellmate
>> was a legal genius? Because of his legal antics in jail he could face
>> more charges, and he was almost out. Is there some precedent where an
>> organization like the ACLU could step in and help the guy in spite of
>> himself?
>
> Of course that is possible,
> but you don't want to help a convicted criminal
> who says that he will take up his criminal ways again
> as soon as he is out,

If he were in gaol for attacking evolutionary theory then I would have
no objection to letting him out. After all, I don't think any of us
here would want the creos among us to go to gaol. However, my
understanding is that his sentence had nothing to do with evolution,
but concerned his refusal to pay tax and other shady financial
activities. I don't see why he shouldn't be treated in the same way as
anyone else convicted of such crimes.

--
athel

[Nashton]

Focus. I was talking about Ron O's obsession with Hovind in which there
is an obvious affective component.

Do you by any chance ever stop to think before posting?


>

[RonO]

You seem to not understand what I wrote. I have been the one that has
said that Hovind's crime does not fit his punishment. If he was your
average rapists he would have been out of jail years ago. Being like
you is not a crime in and of itself, but the willfully incompetent can
do things that are illegal. I assume that you are not in jail, and look
how badly off you are. Hovind has almost served his full time,for what?
Now he is in danger of being convicted of stupidity that he has done
while in jail. Should the willfully incompetent be punished to this
extent? There are advocacy groups that help death row inmates fight the
death penalty. Is there a group that is willing to help the incompetent
like Hovind? I am sure that you would want as much help as you could
get if you were in the same predicament as Hovind, and your willful
incompetence was keeping you in jail.

Ron Okimoto

[Robert Carnegie]

On Thursday, 5 March 2015 02:14:48 UTC, A.Carlson wrote:
> FWIW Hovind is the type of clown that probably does far more harm than
> good for his own cause. Sure there will always be the true believers
> who will follow anything that nutters like Hovind dish out but there
> is always plenty of lunacy that can be readily exploited that will
> convince other, less irrational, creationists that perhaps there is
> less to creationism than meets the eye and we are more than happy to
> do our part. Hovind provides a good bad example.

Several years ago, and possibly before people really
got the hang of doing multiculturalism, there was
a story that the pious rulers of an English town
decided to forbid trading on stalls in the market
square on a Sunday. However, they scrupulously
ruled that this restriction would not apply to
Muslims. (Muslims do Sunday on a Friday.) As the
tale goes, every stallholder in the market at once
notified the town council that they were a Muslim.

Likewise, if being Kent Hovind turns out to mean
that you don't have to pay taxes, almost everybody
in America will want to be Kent Hovind. Even if it
means being called "Kent Hovind". I would rather
pay, but it isn't an easy decision.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

PoultRon <roki...@cox.net> wrote in news:md6tcl$u3b$1...@dont-email.me:

> On 3/3/2015 10:36 PM, jspa...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>> From the article:
>> ----------------------------------------
>> Hovind doesn't have the look of a fighter. He was calm and detached
>> Monday, leaning back in his chair as he watched the court proceedings
>> through the thick-rimmed glasses on graying his temples. However, to
>> a certain subset of the populace, Hovind has become a folk hero of
>> sorts for his willingness to rail against the establishment. A young
>> Earth creationist, Hovind's claim to fame has been attempting to poke
>> holes in popularly-accepted notions such as evolution and an "old
>> Earth."
>>
>> It came as no surprise that he has been trying to poke holes in the
>> legal process, though his success has been questionable. The grounds
>> for many of Hovind's legal actions reportedly came from a cellmate in
>> a New Hampshire prison camp whom allegedly Hovind described as a
>> "legal genius." -----------------------------------------
>>
>> Read it at
>> http://www.pnj.com/story/news/crime/2015/03/03/day-hovind-trial/243411
>> 07/
>>

> I realize that Hovind has brought this onto himself, but isn't 10
> years enough?

This from a guy who routinely refers to people who aren't breaking any
laws as 'perps'? Never would've pegged you as being soft on crime.

If Hovind committed mail fraud, then he deserves to spend more time in
prison. If he didn't, he still needs to finish serving the rest of his
earlier sentence.

> There should be some type of system to protect the incompetent from
> themselves.

Yeah, why should someone be prosecuted for committing a crime just
because they weren't competent enough to get away with it?

> Hovind isn't killing anyone. He is a flake and likely wouldn't know a
> valid argument if it hit him in the face two or three times, but
> should someone be punished for being willfully incompetent?

Committing crimes incompetently doesn't make you less of a criminal.
Hovind raked in millions of dollars by exploiting the United States's
laissez-faire attitude towards bogus religious claims. The fact that he
made his money legally is appalling. The fact that he was ruined when he
tried to cheat the same government that had enabled him to become
wealthy is a pleasant irony: if he'd been willing to share the proceeds
of his perfectly legal scam with the government that turned a blind eye
to it, he'd be a free and very wealthy man today.

> What kind of loser would consistently fail and think that his cellmate
> was a legal genius?

A criminal one.

> Because of his legal antics in jail he could face more charges, and he
> was almost out.

Look! Between these two arrows! -> <- Can you see it? It's the violin
playing for Kent Hovind.

> Is there some precedent where an organization like the ACLU could step
> in and help the guy in spite of himself?

Yeah, no. The ACLU is trying to help people who actually need help, like
the people who are currently serving life sentences because they bought
marijuana for their personal use. They don't waste their time on people
who got rich by abusing their First Amendment rights and then ran their
yachts aground on the rocky shores of the Federal Tax Code.
--
S.O.P.

[Mike Painter]

On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 08:34:04 -0400, Nashton <no...@nana.ca> wrote:

Threatened?
Why would he want to get the idiot out if he was threatened?

[Mike Painter]

On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 06:22:22 -0600, RonO <roki...@cox.net> wrote:

>
>>
>I realize that Hovind has brought this onto himself, but isn't 10 years
>enough? There should be some type of system to protect the incompetent
>from themselves. Hovind isn't killing anyone. He is a flake and likely
>wouldn't know a valid argument if it hit him in the face two or three
>times, but should someone be punished for being willfully incompetent?
>What kind of loser would consistently fail and think that his cellmate
>was a legal genius? Because of his legal antics in jail he could face
>more charges, and he was almost out. Is there some precedent where an
>organization like the ACLU could step in and help the guy in spite of
>himself?
>
>Ron Okimoto

There is no indication that he is incompetent.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kent_Hovind#Legal_problems

He is just not bright enough to get away with the scams he used.

[jillery]

Of course, before you talked about Ron O's obsession, it would have
helped if you first showed that his alleged obsession applied to his
comments.

>Do you by any chance ever stop to think before posting?

Carlson pointed out that what you seem to see as evidence of Ron O's
obsession obviously is the opposite of obsession, and so your comments
are obviously mindless, hence Carlson's question which you mindlessly
parroted.

--
Intelligence is never insulting.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

On 2015-03-05 15:56:49 +0100, "Sneaky O. Possum"
<sneaky...@gmail.com> said:

[ ... ]

>
> Yeah, no. The ACLU is trying to help people who actually need help, like
> the people who are currently serving life sentences because they bought
> marijuana for their personal use. They don't waste their time on people
> who got rich by abusing their First Amendment rights and then ran their
> yachts aground on the rocky shores of the Federal Tax Code.

I'm no American, so I may have it wrong, but I don't think it's quite
that. As I understand it the "CL" in "ACLU" stands for "civil
liberties", and the ACLU helps people whose civil liberties are being
abused (even, I think, the US Nazi Party on one occasion). Failing to
pay your taxes isn't a civil right, however, so it's not the business
of the ACLU to help people get away with their crimes.


--
athel

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 5 Mar 2015 17:27:46 +0100, the following appeared in
talk.origins, posted by Athel Cornish-Bowden
<athe...@yahoo.co.uk>:

>On 2015-03-05 15:56:49 +0100, "Sneaky O. Possum"
><sneaky...@gmail.com> said:

>> ...The ACLU is trying to help people who actually need help, like

>> the people who are currently serving life sentences because they bought
>> marijuana for their personal use. They don't waste their time on people
>> who got rich by abusing their First Amendment rights and then ran their
>> yachts aground on the rocky shores of the Federal Tax Code.

>I'm no American, so I may have it wrong, but I don't think it's quite
>that. As I understand it the "CL" in "ACLU" stands for "civil
>liberties", and the ACLU helps people whose civil liberties are being
>abused (even, I think, the US Nazi Party on one occasion). Failing to
>pay your taxes isn't a civil right, however, so it's not the business
>of the ACLU to help people get away with their crimes.

No, but they do get involved if the punishment can be seen
as "cruel or unusual" in relation to the crime, like the
marijuana convictions noted above; that's where the civil
liberties issue arises since such punishment is forbidden by
the US Constitution.

That said, as someone else noted Hovind wasn't convicted for
anything to do with his religious beliefs per se (which
*would* have attracted the ACLU), but for essentially the
same crime that put Al Capone in prison, and he shouldn't be
treated as "special" simply because he rejects science, and
the punishment for tax evasion is neither cruel nor unusual.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 04 Mar 2015 17:23:30 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Walter Bushell <pr...@panix.com>:

Apparently you're referring to Hovind's belief, not to
anything I wrote, which referred only to the author of the
article quoted by Jason. Correct?

[deadrat]

On 3/4/15 6:22 AM, RonO wrote:
> On 3/3/2015 10:36 PM, jspa...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>> From the article:
>> ----------------------------------------
>> Hovind doesn't have the look of a fighter. He was calm and detached
>> Monday, leaning back in his chair as he watched the court proceedings
>> through the thick-rimmed glasses on graying his temples. However, to a
>> certain subset of the populace, Hovind has become a folk hero of sorts
>> for his willingness to rail against the establishment. A young Earth
>> creationist, Hovind's claim to fame has been attempting to poke holes
>> in popularly-accepted notions such as evolution and an "old Earth."
>>
>> It came as no surprise that he has been trying to poke holes in the
>> legal process, though his success has been questionable. The grounds
>> for many of Hovind's legal actions reportedly came from a cellmate in
>> a New Hampshire prison camp whom allegedly Hovind described as a
>> "legal genius."
>> -----------------------------------------
>>
>> Read it at
>> http://www.pnj.com/story/news/crime/2015/03/03/day-hovind-trial/24341107/
>>
>>
>>
>> J. Spaceman
>>
>>
> I realize that Hovind has brought this onto himself, but isn't 10 years

> enough? <snip/>

Hovind decided to break federal law. This put him at the mercy of a
system that has an unforgiving mechanical means for determining
sentences and no parole.

[A.Carlson]

I was certainly focused enough to recognize that RonO seemed to be
advocating for Mr. Hovind's release and that position is hardly one
that someone who felt threatened by the likes of Hovind would take.

It is also fairly clear to me that, like so many other creationists,
you appear to be desperately grasping at straws which would explain
why what you were stating doesn't even make sense.

[Mike Dworetsky]

Robert Carnegie wrote:
> On Thursday, 5 March 2015 02:14:48 UTC, A.Carlson wrote:
>> FWIW Hovind is the type of clown that probably does far more harm
>> than good for his own cause. Sure there will always be the true
>> believers who will follow anything that nutters like Hovind dish out
>> but there is always plenty of lunacy that can be readily exploited
>> that will convince other, less irrational, creationists that perhaps
>> there is less to creationism than meets the eye and we are more than
>> happy to do our part. Hovind provides a good bad example.
>
> Several years ago, and possibly before people really
> got the hang of doing multiculturalism, there was
> a story that the pious rulers of an English town
> decided to forbid trading on stalls in the market
> square on a Sunday. However, they scrupulously
> ruled that this restriction would not apply to
> Muslims. (Muslims do Sunday on a Friday.) As the
> tale goes, every stallholder in the market at once
> notified the town council that they were a Muslim.

If it was "years ago" then it would have been a ruling that it would not
apply to Jews. They could open on Sunday and close on Saturday. Most in
not all of these Sunday laws have been rescinded. For a long time the DIY
shops stayed open on Sunday on the grounds that they sold airplane parts,
which was one of the activities permitted under Sunday restrictions. They
also sold paint, lawnmowers, garden plants, etc.

>
> Likewise, if being Kent Hovind turns out to mean
> that you don't have to pay taxes, almost everybody
> in America will want to be Kent Hovind. Even if it
> means being called "Kent Hovind". I would rather
> pay, but it isn't an easy decision.

--
Mike Dworetsky

(Remove pants sp*mbl*ck to reply)

[Nashton]

Who are you, you snooty little nobody that posts only for attention? Do
you know me? Do you know what degree of competency I've attained in my
work? Do you know if I'm a good father? A good friend? A good musician?

Va chier, couillon.

[RonO]

You are correct. This has nothing to do with his evolutionary views.
It is just the issue as to how much someone like Hovind should be
punished for doing what he did. Tax evasion is a crime, but if he were
the average rapist he would have been out of jail years ago. Instead he
served his full time and now he is in danger of additional punishment
for the stupid things that he did while he was in jail.

I am sure that he brought a lot of this onto himself, but there are
groups that help inmates on issues like the death penalty. I was just
wondering if there was some advocacy group for the willfully incompetent
that are basically just a danger to themselves in these respects.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Give it up, you blew that argument too.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

When I say willfully incompetent, that does not mean insane or that he
doesn't understand what he is doing. It means just what it says. He is
incompetent on purpose, for the purpose of continuing to do what he
wants to do. There have been a number of creationist posters like that.
NashT is just one of them. These guys aren't insane or stupid, they
just have to be stupid in order to continue to do what they want to do.
I do not claim to understand it I just state what it is.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Do you think they could give him time off for time already served when
he is convicted of the stupidity he committed while in jail?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

I just know that you are willfully incompetent. Just look how you
screwed up with the post that I was responding to. What excuse do you
have? You obviously did what you did for your own reasons and it was
obviously a stupid thing to do. I would note that projection is another
one of your foibles, so you might try to understand how that works into
your willful incompetence. Just reflect on how your posts reflects on
your projection of what you think of me. Doesn't it bother you that you
are the one that does the stupid and bogus crap?

Ron Okimoto

[chris thompson]

As far as I can tell, the only new thing he's charged with is contempt. That usually carries a fine, or a light sentence. You've got to really get under a judge's skin to land a contempt charge; Hovind and his crew were repeatedly warned about filing frivolous injunctions, and they went ahead regardless.

Also, note the phrase in the article "structuring bank withdrawals to skirt reporting requirements." They're referring to a slew of transactions of (IIRC) $9900, just under the amount which must be reported to the IRS ($10,000). Doing that once won't get you any attention, but you'd better believe that a pattern of withdrawals like that is going to look bad, and be construed as evidence of tax evasion.

And no, I don't think tax evasion is a non-serious offense. It's one of the few things that should be an equalizer in a democracy or republic. Too bad we're living in an oligarchy now.

Chris

[Sneaky O. Possum]

chris thompson <chris.li...@gmail.com> wrote in
news:84033235-218f-4d95...@googlegroups.com:

> As far as I can tell, the only new thing he's charged with is
> contempt.

No, he's also being charged with several counts of mail fraud. Of course,
he hasn't been convicted of either contempt or fraud, and he might not
be. The guy's a tool, but this latest prosecution might be malicious: if
*I* were in a position to prosecute Hovind, it would be very difficult to
ensure that my actions weren't influenced by my opinion of the defendant.

> That usually carries a fine, or a light sentence. You've got
> to really get under a judge's skin to land a contempt charge; Hovind
> and his crew were repeatedly warned about filing frivolous
> injunctions, and they went ahead regardless.
>
> Also, note the phrase in the article "structuring bank withdrawals to
> skirt reporting requirements." They're referring to a slew of
> transactions of (IIRC) $9900, just under the amount which must be
> reported to the IRS ($10,000). Doing that once won't get you any
> attention, but you'd better believe that a pattern of withdrawals like
> that is going to look bad, and be construed as evidence of tax
> evasion.

Hovind amassed millions of dollars in income in the '90s and early '00s
and never filed a tax return. The structured withdrawals were a minor
aspect of his evasion: among other tactics, he also played a shell game
with property titles and deeds, switching them from one family member to
another in an attempt to make it look like he personally owned very few
assets.

He also had regular employees - they testified at his trial that he made
them punch a time clock - and he lied about their status in hopes he
could get out of paying Federal employer taxes.

> And no, I don't think tax evasion is a non-serious offense. It's one
> of the few things that should be an equalizer in a democracy or
> republic. Too bad we're living in an oligarchy now.

Indeed.
--
S.O.P.

[Earle Jones27]

*
Chris: Greetings!

Tax evasion is indeed a serious offense. As I recall, that's what put
Al Capone in jail. (Or was it Bugsy Siegel?)

Tax avoidance, on the other hand, is the all-American game, Just this
afternoon, I myself have been doing some clever (I hope) tax avoidance
in my TY2014 filing.

earle
*

[deadrat]

The feds reduce sentences for "good conduct" time based on some arcane
formula, but Hovind probably blew that if he committed crimes while
incarcerated.

The feds give the convicted full credit for time served before conviction.

[Sneaky O. Possum]

Earle Jones27 <earle...@comcast.net> wrote in
news:2015030614214199590-earlejones@comcastnet:

> On 2015-03-06 12:32:50 +0000, chris thompson said:
>
>> On Friday, March 6, 2015 at 7:04:43 AM UTC-5, Ron O wrote:
>>> On 3/5/2015 11:46 AM, deadrat wrote:
>>>> On 3/4/15 6:22 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> On 3/3/2015 10:36 PM, jspa...@linuxquestions.net wrote:
>>>>>> From the article:
>>>>>> ----------------------------------------
>>>>>> Hovind doesn't have the look of a fighter. He was calm and
>>>>>> detached Monday, leaning back in his chair as he watched the
>>>>>> court proceedings through the thick-rimmed glasses on graying his
>>>>>> temples. However, to a certain subset of the populace, Hovind has
>>>>>> become a folk hero of sorts for his willingness to rail against
>>>>>> the establishment. A young Earth creationist, Hovind's claim to
>>>>>> fame has been attempting to poke holes in popularly-accepted
>>>>>> notions such as evolution and an "old Earth."
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It came as no surprise that he has been trying to poke holes in
>>>>>> the legal process, though his success has been questionable. The
>>>>>> grounds for many of Hovind's legal actions reportedly came from a
>>>>>> cellmate in a New Hampshire prison camp whom allegedly Hovind
>>>>>> described as a "legal genius."
>>>>>> -----------------------------------------
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Read it at
>>>>>> http://www.pnj.com/story/news/crime/2015/03/03/day-hovind-trial/24
>>>>>> 341107/
>>>>>>

>>>>> I realize that Hovind has brought this onto himself, but isn't 10
>>>>> years enough? <snip/>
>>>>
>>>> Hovind decided to break federal law. This put him at the mercy of
>>>> a system that has an unforgiving mechanical means for determining
>>>> sentences and no parole.
>>>
>>> Do you think they could give him time off for time already served
>>> when he is convicted of the stupidity he committed while in jail?
>>>

>> As far as I can tell, the only new thing he's charged with is
>> contempt. That usually carries a fine, or a light sentence. You've
>> got to really get under a judge's skin to land a contempt charge;
>> Hovind and his crew were repeatedly warned about filing frivolous
>> injunctions, and they went ahead regardless.
>>
>> Also, note the phrase in the article "structuring bank withdrawals to
>> skirt reporting requirements." They're referring to a slew of
>> transactions of (IIRC) $9900, just under the amount which must be
>> reported to the IRS ($10,000). Doing that once won't get you any
>> attention, but you'd better believe that a pattern of withdrawals
>> like that is going to look bad, and be construed as evidence of tax
>> evasion.
>>
>> And no, I don't think tax evasion is a non-serious offense. It's one
>> of the few things that should be an equalizer in a democracy or
>> republic. Too bad we're living in an oligarchy now.
>

> *
> Chris: Greetings!
>
> Tax evasion is indeed a serious offense. As I recall, that's what put
> Al Capone in jail. (Or was it Bugsy Siegel?)

Capone was the one the Feds sent to prison on tax evasion charges. Siegel
was murdered in Los Angeles before the Feds could get to him.

> Tax avoidance, on the other hand, is the all-American game, Just this
> afternoon, I myself have been doing some clever (I hope) tax avoidance
> in my TY2014 filing.

There are many perfectly legal ways to minimize one's tax burden, but
they all require the acknowledgment that one has a tax burden. Hovind
refuses to acknowledge that: as far as he's concerned, the state has no
right to tax him. That attitude isn't just stupid: it's dangerous.
--
S.O.P.