A Quick Court Note

Posted 31 December 2008 by Richard B. Hoppe

A little something to start the New Year off. Via TaxProf we learn that Kent and Jo Hovind's appeal of their convictions on a range of charges associated with their handling of his ministry's money and tax evasion has been denied by the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. On a fast scan of the ruling (pdf), it appears that the appeal failed on all the grounds it alleged. Hat tip to Glenn Branch, veteran creationist spotter.

12 Comments

Gary Hurd · 31 December 2008

My favorite part:

IV. CONCLUSION
The convictions and sentences of the Hovinds are AFFIRMED.

gabriel · 31 December 2008

my favourite part:

These arguments fail.

Creationism in a nutshell...

Kevin B · 1 January 2009

No doubt the assertion in the ruling that

The District Court did not err

will annoy the biblical inerrancy lot. And who was "Bobo" in the repeated reference to United States vs Bobo?

iml8 · 1 January 2009

Kevin B said: And who was "Bobo" in the repeated reference to United States vs Bobo?

C'mon sport, "use da Google" ... ah: http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/477239 Its relevance is not spectacularly obvious to a layperson whose eyes glaze over reading legal briefs. On a fast reading it concerns Richard Bobo, convicted on a drug-related murder. The cops were actually after his brother, Marvin Bobo, but grabbed Richard, who turned out to be the culprit. It seems the relevant issue is that Richard tried to get his conviction thrown out on the technicality that the cops were after Marvin but not him. The courts said: "Nice try lad, but no cookie." I get the impression Hovind was trying to play a technicality along such lines. "No cookie for you, either." I am reluctant to gloat too much at the misfortunes of others even when they deserve it. Call me superstitious but it seems to invite bad luck -- there is such a thing as Karma. Cheers -- MrG (www.vectorsite.net)

Paul Burnett · 1 January 2009

Kevin B said: And who was "Bobo" in the repeated reference to United States vs Bobo?

Richard Vunzell Bobo Jr. - see http://www.altlaw.org/v1/cases/477239

Wheels · 1 January 2009

iml8 said: It seems the relevant issue is that Richard tried to get his conviction thrown out on the technicality that the cops were after Marvin but not him. The courts said: "Nice try lad, but no cookie." I get the impression Hovind was trying to play a technicality along such lines. "No cookie for you, either."

Is that bit relevant to them nabbing his wife, or is it related to his attempts to demonstrate that "KENT HOVIND" is not "Kent Hovind," the plea "subornation of false muster," and other bizarre anti-taxation arguments?

iml8 · 1 January 2009

Wheels said: Is that bit relevant to them nabbing his wife, or is it related to his attempts to demonstrate that "KENT HOVIND" is not "Kent Hovind," the plea "subornation of false muster," and other bizarre anti-taxation arguments?

No time or inclination to investigate the matter in detail myself, so I will leave it to the students of the law. I do have to think, at the risk of gloating, that Hovind, having got into the habit of spinning tapdancing arguments about evo science (and 911 too, didn't he?), found that trying to use the same sort of tapdancing arguments on the IRS and the courts didn't work so hot. "We are NOT amused." Cheers -- MrG / www.vectorsite.net

a lurker · 1 January 2009

The moral of the story is: If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime.

I am still wondering how he got away with it for so damn long. But that tends to be a problem with criminals. They never quit when they are ahead. If you keep doing the crime, even though you got away with it many times before, you will eventually get what is coming to you...

Kevin B · 1 January 2009

iml8 said:
Kevin B said: And who was "Bobo" in the repeated reference to United States vs Bobo?
C'mon sport, "use da Google" ... ah:

The reality is less exciting than the thought that the appeal was dismissed by reference to a case involving a(nother) clown. Do I understand correctly that the appeal was based in part on the claim that because the cash withdrawals were individually beneath the threshold that triggered automatic reporting by the bank, the withdrawals should not be considered to intended to avoid triggering the reports??

fnxtr · 1 January 2009

With his legal acumen, maybe Kent could get a job at TMLC, or form the Luskin, Hovind, and Associates legal juggernaut.

Chris Tucker · 1 January 2009

a la "Real Genius"...

"KENT! This is Jesus. You lost. Accept your pre-ordained fate.

And stop touching yourself!"

Michael J · 1 January 2009

a lurker said: The moral of the story is: If you can't do the time, then don't do the crime. I am still wondering how he got away with it for so damn long. But that tends to be a problem with criminals. They never quit when they are ahead. If you keep doing the crime, even though you got away with it many times before, you will eventually get what is coming to you...

It could be that you just don't hear about the ones that quit while they were ahead.