Hovind busted, finally

i don't know why he hasn't tried to sue the government under RICO...

Today's news indicates that the Wheel of the Law is back to grinding slowly away...

Your link links us to the a list of DUI arrests over the weekend.

quote:

---

Weekend felony, DUI arrests
FELONY ARRESTS
ESCAMBIA COUNTY
The following suspects were charged with felonies Sunday at Escambia County Jail. Names, ages and addresses were provided by the individuals.

---

Try this link. I found that by entering "hovind" in the search box on the earlier linked page.

---

Compassionate conservatism - bringing you a kinder, gentler torture chamber

How wonderfully bizarre.Here are some choice comments:
linky

Here.

Delaying the inevitable...Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.

Though your link brings up a Pensacola News Journal page, the box where the news story would normally be was empty. I poked around their site a bit and got a number of Service Not Available messages. Anyway, I did find this link that seems to be working, at least right now: --Percy

Commenting on the article I just referenced, Hovind's attourney, Alan Richey, explained why they would not be calling any witnesses or presenting a defense: Hovind's attourney thinks ignorance of the law is a valid defense?Quoting from the article: I wonder what he uses for a passport.I'm guessing they're convinced they'll lose and are readying an appeal. You tax law guys out there, what are their appeal options once they lose at the current trial?--Percy

On appeal, they must show that the trial court judge made some error of law that prejudiced their case, or that the evidence was legally insufficient to prove their guilt. Only a detailed review of the trial proceedings can answer either of those questions.As far as whether they knew they had to pay taxes, there are some crimes that are called "specific intent crimes." What that means is that in order to get a conviction, the state must prove that someone did something knowingly or intentionally. Most drug possession crimes are specific intent crimes. If you have a pound of marijuana in your possession, but can prove that you reasonably didn't know it was marijuana, you won't be convicted. There are other kinds of crimes, called "strict liability crimes." You do it and you're guilty, regardless of what was in your mind at the time. Many states have made statutory rape a strict liability crime. Even if you had a reasonable belief that she was 18, you're still guilty if she was in fact only 13.I don't know without looking into it whether the crimes the Hovinds are charged with a specific intent or strict liability crimes. If they are specific intent, the government has to show that they knowingly failed to pay taxes. However, there appears to be at least some evidence that they knew what they were doing wasn't kosher. There were apparently several cash withdrawals of large sums that the Hovinds made over time. This supports an inference that they knew what they were doing was wrong and didn't want to leave a paper trail. It would be up to the jury to decide whether that is a reasonable inference based on all the evidence.However, a key to a specific intent crime is that the lack of mens rea, the level of intent required for the crime, must be reasonable. If your defense for the possession of a pound of marijuana charge is that you thought it was oregano, but you bought it from a guy on the street for $500.00, that's not going to get you very far.In this case, if the basis for the Hovinds' claim that they didn't know they had to pay taxes was their belief they are not citizens of the U.S., that they are not persons, that the word "whoever" doesn't apply to them, and the other gigglers mentioned in this thread, well, it's up to the jury to decide whether those ideas are reasonble or not. But if I were a betting man, and I am, I'd be willing to lay long odds that the Hovinds are not going to walk out of that courtroom free people.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

They will probably base an appeal on the first amendment establishment clause. I expect them to lose that appeal.

In essence, that's what's behind their claim that as a church they don't have to pay taxes, although there may well be some interplay with the free exercise clause as well.However, church or not, that doesn't relieve them of the responsibility for payroll taxes, nor does it help in their rather unsophisticated attempts to get around the cash transfer reporting laws.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

How do you read this action by the defense--basically, the decision not to mount one?.

---

ArcherAll species are transitional.

Well, not knowing too much about the proceedings, and reading between the lines, I'd guess it's because their attorneys figured the Hovinds would make lousy witnesses. A jury tends to get very turned off by hostile and superior sounding witnesses. Keep in mind that every person on that jury is likely a taxpayer. And, while most of them do everything they can to avoid taxes, and a few of them might even fudge a bit here and there, none of them is likely to have much sympathy for someone who hasn't paid any, particularly with the amount of money the Hovinds took in. If they then sit there on the witness stand and smugly argue with the prosecutor about why they didn't have to pay any taxes and evaded cash transfer reporting laws, and have to explain why they are not "persons," they're dead in the water.They're probably dead in the water anyway, with the slim hope that they can portray themselves as some kind of martyrs. But anyone in any U.S. Attorney's office could expose that kind of tripe in about five minutes with these nuts on the stand.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin

Well, that didn't take long... No webpage found at provided URL: http://www.pensacolanewsjournal.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=2006611020330

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin Franklin