Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Hovind busted, finally
Chief Infidel
Inactive Member


Message 46 of 308 (332718)
07-17-2006 10:56 PM


Indictment?
Does anyone have a link for the actual indictment?
I'd love to read it and I don't think smokinggun will be covering this one.
Someone on another forum suggested that I visit Public Access to Court Electronic Records | PACER: Federal Court Records but I was unable to locate Hovind's indictment there.

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by Percy, posted 07-18-2006 8:24 AM Chief Infidel has not replied

Chief Infidel
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 308 (333091)
07-18-2006 8:55 PM
Reply to: Message 61 by Lithodid-Man
07-18-2006 6:27 PM


I know something too
Subordination under false muster is gibberish. I spoke with a judge about it today and we both had a good laugh.
To Hovind's credit, it is possible that taxing a wage earner's income and depositing the money into a private bank (the federal reserve) is unconstitutional.
There have been several individuals who have forgone paying income tax then tried to fight the system and lost. But there are other ways to protest taxes aside from not filing. Anyway, the legallity of income taxes in this country is another issue and Hovind is very unlikely to prevail on the merits of any such claim.
Hovind knew the law (evidence of this are his 1996 legal troubles), and disobeyed it anyway. This goes to his arrogance and character.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Lithodid-Man, posted 07-18-2006 6:27 PM Lithodid-Man has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Omnivorous, posted 07-18-2006 9:14 PM Chief Infidel has not replied
 Message 66 by johnfolton, posted 07-19-2006 12:08 AM Chief Infidel has not replied
 Message 67 by arachnophilia, posted 07-19-2006 12:18 AM Chief Infidel has not replied

Chief Infidel
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 308 (333179)
07-19-2006 1:43 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by johnfolton
07-19-2006 12:56 AM


Re: Christian Churches
Interesting. Thank you.
How does the IRS define a church?
If there is a clear IRS definition of church (I have not found one), do you think Hovind's CSE qualifies?
Is Hovind ordained? I do not believe he is, but does it matter?
(On a personal note, I was ordained online the other day and let me tell you, it changed my life!)
The IRS will no doubt find out just how much he has made on his sales of videos and other materials. What do you make of his sale of all that material and would that effect CSE's status as a church?
I am responding to an individual's post with these questions but if anyone else wants to jump in that is quite alright with me.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by johnfolton, posted 07-19-2006 12:56 AM johnfolton has not replied

Chief Infidel
Inactive Member


Message 79 of 308 (333299)
07-19-2006 12:05 PM
Reply to: Message 76 by saureanescapade
07-19-2006 7:20 AM


Defamation: Slander and Libel
And if you want to...slander people without them being able to defend themselves, you are crossing a line with God, that he will not forgive you for if you do not seriously think about you and life, and how final death can be.
As an aside, Kent Hovind clearly meets the test of a public figure.
Here on earth, in the United States, it is more difficult to defame (slander or libel) a public figure than a regular joe (the element of "actual malice" comes into play). Of course, god's law, to which you refer, is likely different. The ultimate defense to defamation is truth of the statement. Another defense is that the statement made is an opinion rather than a purported statement of fact.
For example, even if he were not a public figure, I can say "Hovind is a criminal" This statement is both true and opinion. Evidence of this is his criminal record and former conviction(s). It is also my opinion that Hovind is a criminal, and I base this on his past convictions. Saying "Hovind is a snake-oil salesman" is opinion, as I am not suggesting that he actually sells oil made from snakes. Neither statement is slander or libel.
Concerning god's law, in past court preceedings Kent Hovind has clearly violated some of the 10 commandments. Now, an argument can be made that by saying that he owns nothing, even the guns belong to his church, and that everything he owns belongs to god, Hovind is taking the lord's name in vein. Hovind's lawsuit against the IRS investigators likely constitutes bearing false witness against his neighbors. But, this is god's law. We should leave god in charge of his laws (after all, we would likely violate a commandment if we were to try to enforce god's laws) and we should be in charge of the laws on earth.
So slander away!
Edited by Chief Infidel, : sllepnig

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by saureanescapade, posted 07-19-2006 7:20 AM saureanescapade has not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024