Hovind busted, finally

Federal sentencing guidelines are rather complex. The penalty Hovind would face will depend on exactly what he's convicted on and the amount of tax he's failed to pay. In addition, the guidelines take into account previous convictions. Without knowing these details, it's impossible to give more than a very broad range of possible sentences.However, it's extraordinarily unlikely that the judge will simply ignore the guidelines. The guidelines are mandatory in virtually all cases. What's more, it's not even very likely that the judge will even depart from the guidelines. Given what I've heard about Hovind's complete disregard for the law and his flimsy excuses, I'd say it's more likely that any departure would be upward, rather than downward.

---

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

I suspect that this is the first honest thing this jackass has said in the whole matter. What he doesn't say is that the "deeply held religious belief" that it violates is his belief that he gets to keep every nickel that touches his grubby little hands.

---

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

I'm absolutely certain Hovind doesn't know more about law than I do.What's more, given that most of what Hovind appears to believe about the law is dead wrong, in a sense anyone who knows nothing about the law, but doesn't believe a bunch of things that are wrong, knows more than Hovind.Edited by subbie, : Typo

---

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

Being able to evade prosecution for a while says absolutely nothing about his knowledge of law, tax or otherwise.I can only base my assessment of Hovind's knowledge of the law on the statements he has purportedly made. If you have better information than has been posted in this thread, that information might cause me to reconsider my position. However, assuming he has actually said the things attributed to him in this thread, I can say without fear of error that I know considerably more about law than Hovind does.

---

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

You really ought not make such sweeping statements in a field where you know nothing.It can take years, even decades sometimes, to make a tax case against someone, for a variety of reasons. Not to mention the fact that generally federal prosecutors are a very conservative bunch. They don't bring a case until they are certain they can get a conviction. Finally, take into account that, as things go, this sort of nut isn't that high on their priority list. There are dangerous people they need to catch quickly. There are also some people that are more likely to disappear.You are of course free to assume he's innocent as long as you want. But don't pretend that there's any reason to suppose he's innocent.

---

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

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

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

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

Here here! Not bloody likely. It's a rare case where anyone gets the maximum possible sentence. Even less likely. Keep in mind P.T.'s law: There's one born every minute. That means that in 288 years there will be approximately 151,470,000 more suckers.

---

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

You're putting the cart before the horse. He hasn't been sentenced to 288 years. That is the maximum that he could face. And it's quite unlikely, in my opinion, that he will get the whole 288 years.Whatever sentence he ends up getting, he will likely have to serve 85% of the time before he is released. There is no federal parole. Federal prisoners can get a "good time credit" of up to 54 days for every year served.

---

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

Sentencing follows a set of guidelines established by a Federal Commission pursuant to an act of Congress. The guidelines are rather complicated, and to determine the exact range of sentences that the Hovinds would fall under would require knowing exactly what crimes they were convicted of, at least a general idea of the amount of money involved, and their prior criminal history.I do not know any of these details, so to give even a range of possible sentences would be sheer speculation.It may well be, given the large number of charges and the fairly large sums of money involved, that either of them might get sentences that would, for all practical purposes, keep them in prison for the rest of their lives. In that event, their only remaining option would be Presidential clemency.

---

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

DISCLAIMER: I have never worked with the Federal Sentencing Guidelines. What follows is what I have been able to glean in the short time I have been looking this evening in response to various questions. I have a moderate level of confidence that this information is somewhat accurate and will give some idea what the Hovinds may be looking at, but it should be considered far from authoritative and I will defer to anyone else's judgment who has greater expertise than I do.It appears that they may be looking at guidelines sentences in the range of 33-41 months, assuming they have no prior criminal convictions that would be relevant for sentencing purposes. This takes into account, as best I can determine, the offenses they appear to have been convicted of, evading cash transfer reporting requirements and failure to pay taxes, and the amount of money involved, in the range of $400,000-$1,000,000. The guidelines presumptive dispostion is that they serve a sentence in this range, as opposed to probation or some other disposition.The judge has the discretion to depart from this range, either in terms of duration or in terms of disposition. There are dozens of different factors that a judge may consider in deciding whether to depart. It is well beyond my abilities to determine whether any such factors may be present or the likelihood that a judge might depart based on any of them.

---

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

I suspect, but do not know, that the answer is yes. Having just spent the better part of an hour plowing through Federal Sentencing Guidelines, I haven't the inclination to look for a more convincing answer than that right now.

---

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

Her opportunity to present that argument, and evidence to support it, was at trial. From the reports I have seen, she made no such argument.There will likely be something next called a "presentence investigation." This is an opportunity for the court to gather information that might be relevant for sentencing or disposition that might not otherwise have come out at trial. We'll see if anything along those lines comes out, but I'd be surprised. She strikes me as a stand-by-my-man kinda gal.

---

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