Hovind busted, finally

Hard to see how this would apply to the Hovinds since, IIRC, they were visited on more than one occasion by IRS agents who told them that they had to pay.

---

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

Federal parole was abolished in 1987.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Well, I'd bet he didn't get any points from the judge for acceptance of responsibility. From the article:

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

10 years, no parole. However, the "no parole" part might be just a tad misleading.He is entitled to a reduction of 54 days from his sentence for each year of "good time" that he does: in other words, keeping his nose clean while in the joint. I suspect it's quite likely he will do that. This amounts to about a 15% credit for each year. The big difference between this and parole is that it's not early release with supervision. His jail time will be done.I'm somewhat puzzled because the article says he's getting 10 plus 2 years parole. I suspect that it's actually probation, not parole. The purpose of the probation is to keep him under court supervision for a time after his release so that if he immediately starts to get into trouble again, they can yank his chain a bit.His options on appeal, very broadly speaking, are two: proving that the judge made some error of law that prejudiced him in some way, or that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict or sentence.There's far too little information available, as far as I can find, to even guess at the likelihood of a successful challenge on appeal. About all I can do is mention that virtually all criminal cases are affirmed on appeal.Of course, there's always clemancy. He could ask Bush, or any subsequent president, for a pardon or communtation. But, just a gut feeling, I'd say he's more likely to prevail on appeal with one of the arguments that Charley's advancing in this thread than to get clemancy.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Well, I can tell from a quick perusal of his "resume" that he would need six years to become a lawyer, the first three being devoted to disabusing him of the myriad things he thinks he knows about the law that aren't so.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

There is no federal parole.From this site: Do you recall what the sources you saw were? In my experience, mass media does a terrible job of reporting legal matters except in those few circumstances where they have an actual lawyer doing the reporting.As far as I know, generally there's no real substantive difference between how difficult it is to get someone back to jail depending on whether it's parole or probation. The big difference, as I understand it, is that probation is normally ordered by the judge as part of the sentencing, but parole is something that's handled by the department of corrections after a person has served some portion of their sentence. There may well be differences in how each is administered depending on the jurisdiction.As things stand now, the only federal prisoners that can be paroled are those who are doing time for offenses committed before November, 1987.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Much too long to cut and paste here, but this site shows that your paranoiac and nearly incoherent ramblings about JFK are hogwash. It explains what Executive Order 11,110 really did, and how it didn't really change the law at all, or give the government any power to issue certificates that it hadn't had for 30 some years.Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat

Read anything he says about creationism or evolution. Even other creos think he's nutty. Or, in this particular thread, anything he says about taxes, and his liability therefore.Edited by subbie, : No reason given.

---

Those who would sacrifice an essential liberty for a temporary security will lose both, and deserve neither. -- Benjamin FranklinWe see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat