Kent Hovind -- Guilty

[harlequin]

Kent Hovind has been found guilty (http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20061102/NEWS01/611020330/1006) of tax evasion.

He is the creationist famous for his so-called "offer" to pay $250,000.00 for proof of evolution.

[George]

Wow.

In her closing argument, she said that Kent Hovind was advised and told numerous times by the court, an attorney and even a member of the Pensacola Christian College that he must pay taxes.
Apparently, he doesn't like to listen to others all that much.

[jrkeller]

I guess he forgot Mark 13-17 about paying taxes.


13 They sent some of the Pharisees and of the Herodians to him, that they might trap him with words.

14 When they had come, they asked him, "Teacher, we know that you are honest, and don't defer to anyone; for you aren't partial to anyone, but truly teach the way of God. Is it lawful to pay taxes to Caesar, or not?

15 Shall we give, or shall we not give?" But he, knowing their hypocrisy, said to them, "Why do you test me? Bring me a denarius, that I may see it."

16 They brought it. He said to them, "Whose is this image and inscription?" They said to him, "Caesar's."

17 Jesus answered them, "Render to Caesar the things that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's." They marveled greatly at him.

[Bearded One]

:razz: :dance:

Not that there was much doubt he would be convicted. He, literally, had no defense.

[Gillianren]

I guess he forgot Mark 13-17 about paying taxes.

You got a chapter for that?

[jrkeller]

You got a chapter for that?

Sorry about that. My great proofreading skills show through again.

It is from Mark chapter 12. Similar verses appear in Matthew 22, 15-22 and Luke 20, 20-26. Clearly something important.

[V-GER]

It is from Mark chapter 12. Similar verses appear in Matthew 22, 15-22 and Luke 20, 20-26. Clearly something important.

Yes, it means we have to do as Eric Cartman says and respect authori-taa.

[Donnie B.]

So I have to pay my taxes to George Washington?

[Trebuchet]

So I have to pay my taxes to George Washington?
Well, George somebody-or-other!

[tofu]

I have a confession to make - but then on the other hand, maybe it's best to let sleeping dogs lie...

[Damien Evans]

I don't pay taxes...

then again i don't have to...

[mickal555]

I do...
Stupid GST

[Gillianren]

I pay sales tax, but my income is a) too small to be taxed and b) tax exempt anyway, so I pay no federal income tax. (Washington doesn't have a state income tax, but I wouldn't have to pay that, either.)

[Pip]

It's a major pain to live in Washington and work in Oregon, since you've got to pay both the sales tax and the income tax.

[Tobin Dax]

It's a major pain to live in Washington and work in Oregon, since you've got to pay both the sales tax and the income tax.

That's why you do it the other way (or move, or shop in Oregon).
Now that I mention it, I probably should wait until I'm home for Christmas before I do my shopping. Mountains, hills, rain, and no sales tax. :)

[Musashi]

Wait, you don't pay your use tax? ;)

[RMallon]

Sentencing handed down for Dr. Doofus.....Ten Years in federal prison! Too bad....it should have been longer. But at least the jerk is off the streets.

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007701190332

http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2007701200319

[Hans]

Hey Pip

I live in Oregon but work contracts overseas - and pay little tax, I just love the 2555 EZ form!

I hope Hovind has a nice time in prison, maybe god will do a Jericho thing for him!

[ToSeek]

I guess he forgot Mark 13-17 about paying taxes.


Best quote to come out of all this:

"Scripture also says 'Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands.' And right now, Caesar demands a building permit," County Commission Chairman Mike Whitehead said.

[Moose]

Best quote to come out of all this:

"Scripture also says 'Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands.' And right now, Caesar demands a building permit," County Commission Chairman Mike Whitehead said.

*cracks up laughing* Oh man, I needed that. :clap: Thanks ToSeek.

[Doodler]

Best quote to come out of all this:

"Scripture also says 'Render unto Caesar what Caesar demands.' And right now, Caesar demands a building permit," County Commission Chairman Mike Whitehead said.

I am going to do my darnedest to make sure this one gets into the company newsletter....

:D:lol:

[Dr Nigel]

Words fail me. Fortunately, someone else said it better:

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Holy-Smoke-lyrics-Iron-Maiden/83C6E4DB62250470482568D10028A0D7

(scroll down a bit to get past the adverts)

[Maksutov]

Words fail me. Fortunately, someone else said it better:

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Holy-Smoke-lyrics-Iron-Maiden/83C6E4DB62250470482568D10028A0D7

(scroll down a bit to get past the adverts)NOTE: Some adult (per the BAUT rules) language there.

But, that gets the point across (so to speak http://img394.imageshack.us/img394/4879/iconbiggrin1kg.gif) quite well.

Reminds me of driving through the western outskirts of Virginny back in 1967 and listening to a radiovangelist telling me to put my hands on the radio to feel the spirit coming through and if I did, I should send a donation ("Now, come on, brother, think of what you just felt! Ten dollars shouldn't be too much for your receiving the spirit!" is what he said) to an address somewhere in West Virginia.

I responded as would be appropriate, and tuned to a Baltimore station playing Sgt. Pepper.

[gwiz]

Kent Hovind has been found guilty of tax evasion.

He is the creationist famous for his so-called "offer" to pay $250,000.00 for proof of evolution.
And they say there's never any good news these days.

[Maksutov]

OriginallyPosted by harlequin http://www.bautforum.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?p=858847#post858847)
Kent Hovind has been found guilty of tax evasion.

He is the creationist famous for his so-called "offer" to pay $250,000.00 for proof of evolution.And they say there's never any good news these days.Yeah!

:)

[Bearded One]

There's some excerpts of phone calls he made from jail last December. I don't think these helped his sentencing very much. You can listen to them here:

Kent Hovind's phone calls (http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070120/VIDEO/70119009/1006)

After listening to these I really question his sanity. (Not that I was to sure of it before listening to them.)

[Dr Nigel]

NOTE: Some adult (per the BAUT rules) language there.


Good point, Mak. Sorry, folks, I shoulda marked it myself.

[tofu]

There's some excerpts of phone calls he made from jail last December. I don't think these helped his sentencing very much. You can listen to them here:

so they can record conversations with your lawyer now?

Also, he claims in the recording that the attorney broke the law. In what way does he believe they broke the law (other than recording a coversation with his lawyer)

[Doodler]

Words fail me. Fortunately, someone else said it better:

http://www.sing365.com/music/lyric.nsf/Holy-Smoke-lyrics-Iron-Maiden/83C6E4DB62250470482568D10028A0D7

(scroll down a bit to get past the adverts)

Always liked Suicidal Tendencies' "Send Me Your Money" or Phil Collins' "Been Talking to Jesus".

Same theme, different listening styles.

[Moose]

so they can record conversations with your lawyer now?

To the very best of my current knowledge, client-attorney priviledge is supposed to be absolute in both of our countries. That said, what appears to be the leak of this recording does very little for my confidence that this isn't being systematically abused in current practice, despite what appears to be the utter clarity of the intent of the law (and quite possibly the letter as well.) I won't go further along this line of thought. I've probably gone a few steps further than I should have.

I guess my question is this: who recorded the conversation, and who released it? If Hovind authorized both actions, then it's probably okay. At least on the moral level. (Can't comment on legal implications of that hypothetical. I haven't a clue in any case.)

[Matherly]

I don't claim to have the whole story here.

But, at least one newspaper report I saw said that the recorded copnversations were with a business partner. If that's the case, it wouldn't be a 'privilaged' conversation.

[Gillianren]

If there's a person as part of the conversation who isn't covered by the privilege--talking to your criminal attorney with a business partner not also defended by your lawyer present and without their lawyer present as well--it's not privileged. (I'm not 100% sure a conversation among the four of you would be privileged, either.) In that case, you are not considered to have a reasonable expectation of privacy. At least, that's my understanding.

[Donnie B.]

Attorney-client privelege is not absolute. For example, if the attorney is actually a participant in the crime, no privelege applies.

Second point: privelege pertains to the client, not the attorney. A client may reveal a conversation with his attorney if he so desires.

What Gillianren says is also true: you can't claim privelege if a third party is present to whom no privelege is attached (e.g. not another attorney on the case, a spouse, a physician, or a minister/priest).

Now, it seems we don't know who was party to this conversation, or even if any expectation of privelege applies. Even so, it could be a crime of some kind to release the tape (or even to make it) without the knowledge and consent of the persons recorded.

[Doodler]

Attorneys are also allowed to breach the privelige if their client gives them any direct information pertaining to the intent to commit crimes in the future.

In udda werds, don't tell your personal shark your plan for offing your old lady in in the event she files for divorce. They're off the hook and can turn you in.

[Moose]

Editted three times in an effort to arrive at a non-ad hom reference for lawyers... it ain't easy.

Hehehe. I've always been fond of "land shark". I also have a sneaky suspicion (based on nothing but my own twisted imaginings) that lawyers might just secretly enjoy that one. I would.

[Bearded One]

so they can record conversations with your lawyer now?
I was wondering about these recordings as well. I do know the news outlet took them down for a while, then put them back up. It is a news site, not a you-tube video, and they have been up a while now. Leads me to believe they are authorized to distribute them. I certainly don't like the fact that they could record your phone conversations and release them without your consent. I would like to know more about how that authorization came about.

[Donnie B.]

After listening through about half of the tapes, it seems to me that they were recorded from the prison telephone system. There are certain times when a recorded voice breaks in announcing an approaching time limit / cutoff.

I wouldn't be a bit surprised if the records of phone calls from prison have no expectation of privacy under the law, unless it's a lawyer/client communication. In this case, the other parties appeared to be Hovind's wife (who was apparently also a co-defendant) and one or another of his partners/colleagues in his church and other businesses. There wouldn't be any privelege if that's the case.

The link also states that these tapes were played in court during the trial. That makes them part of the public record. Presumably any question of privelege would have been ruled on by the judge prior to their being placed into evidence (if there was any such question to begin with).


The most notable theme that Hovind keeps harping on is that (in his reality) the government, especially the prosecutor, had "broken the law". One specific argument he made was that the federal government had no jurisdiction because the alleged crime took place in a particular state, and the Constitution says that gives the state jurisdiction. Does anyone know enough Constitutional law to give a response to this claim? Does anyone know what other specific claims of misconduct Hovind made besides this one? (I assume that the Feds prosecuted the case because Hovind refused to pay Federal taxes; otherwise they would have no interest in a simple building permit dispute.)

[Moose]

(I assume that the Feds prosecuted the case because Hovind refused to pay Federal taxes; otherwise they would have no interest in a simple building permit dispute.)

That would stand to reason. By what appears to be Hovind's logic, the federal government couldn't enforce any laws at all (except perhaps in DC) because by definition, you'd be standing in a state no matter what you did.

That, of course, would be errant nonsense. From what I've seen, I suspect you'd be right. The fact that Hovind was refusing to pay federal taxes gave the US government standing in a federal court.

You'd also be right, I think, that the feds wouldn't give a rat's backtaxes about building permits, which, at least in Canada, would be purely a municipal matter resolved in civil courts, not criminal.

[Moose]

Just to add, yeah, if the tapes were entered into evidence, they're public record and their publication should be quite kosher.

[Doodler]

You'd also be right, I think, that the feds wouldn't give a rat's backtaxes about building permits, which, at least in Canada, would be purely a municipal matter resolved in civil courts, not criminal.

In the US, its typically a county government matter, only going to the state level on appeal if it festers to the point of going to court. The Feds stuck their nose in the building business via the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1992, but that's as far as they got.

Believe me, I know Hovind's type...one of my current jobs is trying to maneuver a church into a building they have refitted and occupied without a single permit...while not a tax matter, they've done every cheap shot string pull they can to wrangle the local government into letting them in, and now they're being required to retroactively permit their stuff, and we're getting in deep with some things about their current space that don't quite mesh with the current building code.

Old saying, "Nothing makes a man an atheist faster than building a church." I believe, brother, I believe...

[Fazor]

Just to point out:
While, AFAIK, you are all correct about the attourny-client confidentiality, there's one point that I didn't see raised: the taped conversations occured on a prison phone. ALL phone calls made by inmates or calls to inmates are recorded. This is not a breach of privacy, because they tell you that they are recording your coversation. As long as one, or both, of the parties knows the conversation is recorded, it's legal (some states require both parties to be informed, Ohio only requires that one party be informed. calls from one state to another the laws become murky, but that's a different story). And inmates are well informed of this fact. And attournies should also be well informed of this. And the little voice at the beginning of the call that says "this conversation is being recorded" should also be kinda a tip-off... oh well.

[tofu]

The most notable theme that Hovind keeps harping on is that (in his reality) the government, especially the prosecutor, had "broken the law".

Yes, I've researched it a little bit more and apparently, while he does accept the government's authority to collect income tax, (so he's not quite that far over the line) he just believes that the people who worked for him (he runs a creationist museum) were "volunteers" and the money he gave them was "gifts" and so he doesn't have to withhold social security taxes for them.

For any non-US BAUTers, the issue here is that all US businesses are required to withhold from an employee's paycheck some money to pay for our social welfare system. About 13% of my paycheck is withheld for example.

So Hovind says, "oh these people who show up every day to give guided tours of my museum, they are just volunteers - they don't work for me. That money I give them every day? Oh that's just a gift."

The reason that the government came down so hard on him is that he's a big fish. Apparently, he was making millions of dollars selling those creationist DVDs. Of course, the IRS is notoriously heavy-handed.

But Hovind is notoriously hard-headed. If he had that much money, he could have afforded an accountant to sort out his finances and pay the social security tax!

At one point in the recording, he even says that he'll pay it now (now that he's on his way to jail) and he says that he would have no problem getting his supporters to raise the money to pay the fine. He should have done that before going to court! His way of thinking is so typical - we see it all the time right here on BAUT. Someone starts by disbelieving Apollo and as you talk to them, you find that it just bubbles over into general hatred of the US or the government or something. Hovind is like that I think.

I really just wish that this could have been worked out without him going to jail - because when he gets out he's going to be more successful and powerful because he will be seen a martyr and people will believe that the government singled him out because of his beliefs.

[ToSeek]

I really just wish that this could have been worked out without him going to jail - because when he gets out he's going to be more successful and powerful because he will be seen a martyr and people will believe that the government singled him out because of his beliefs.

But at least that's going to be nearly a decade from now.

[Gillianren]

Hehehe. I've always been fond of "land shark". I also have a sneaky suspicion (based on nothing but my own twisted imaginings) that lawyers might just secretly enjoy that one. I would.

I knew a lawyer once who collected lawyer jokes. I've got a friend now who's a lawyer; I'll have to ask her.