Talk:Kent Hovind/Archive1

From RationalWiki
Jump to: navigation, search

This is an archive page, last updated 3 November 2018. Please do not make edits to this page.
Archives for this talk page:   , (new)(back)


Regarding the last two or so changes to the layout, I think it's because I'm currently on a widescreen monitor it doesn't quite look right. It's like there isn't enough text to accommodate the templates and image without it messing up and turning fugly. I'm sure it'll be fine looking at it on bog-standard 1024x768. ArmondikoVpathetic 09:06, 25 October 2008 (EDT)

Challange section[edit]

The WP article says that challenge #4 is also abiogenisus. I'd tend to agree, as life wouldn't be life if it didn't reproduce in one way or another. CS Miller 19:56, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

I think that creationist that ask for money to promote that bullshit should be charged with fraud along with homeopaths. Pimobile (talk) 14:06, 29 June 2011 (UTC)

Saving Dino Land[edit]

So Eric Hovind raised $400,000 to "save" Dino land from the government, but there is a more interesting story going on, see this thread here. I will try and remember to parse it but if someone else comes along and wants to give it a shot. tmtoulouse 04:34, 18 June 2010 (UTC)

Kent Hovind's New Web Site[edit]

Kent Hovind has a new web site called --Cms13ca (talk) 23:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

One of his talks[edit]

Someone typed up one of his talks here. Can I do a refutation of it here or on some other page? If so, where should I do it? --Andy Franklinson (talk) 13:18, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Star in your userspace, i.e. "User:Andy Franklinson/My snazzy title" then when you're done to essay space. Or perhaps Main. ТySo long as they pretend to care, I will pretend to listen 14:53, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
...Did you mean start? So I do it in my userpage and when I'm done, I post it as an essay? --Andy Franklinson (talk) 17:50, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes. ТySo long as they pretend to care, I will pretend to listen 17:54, 26 July 2012 (UTC)
OK! Thank you! --Andy Franklinson (talk) 18:11, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Could have avoided going to jail[edit]

I read somewhere that if Hovind and his wife had just co-operated with authorities they could of avoided jail sentences instead they tried everything possible to fight it. Some of these crazy antics include renouncing their citizenship and claiming that because they work for god he owns all their assets so they are not required to pay taxes. Should we mention some of these mis-adventures. — Unsigned, by: Sammygirl / talk / contribs 18:42, 28 July 2012

Kent 'breaks his silence'?[edit]

None other than Terry Hurlbut and his other side project, the Creation Science Hall of Fame apparently briefly posted a letter from Kent Hovind claiming that he was never a tax protestor. I say briefly because apparently his son asked to have the post taken down because Daddy had 'changed his mind'. Does anybody know what it said? On CNAV Terry claims that it was mailed out to others as well...--Martin Arrowsmith (talk) 01:15, 28 September 2013 (UTC)

He's a real character[edit]

I expanded the "all you need to know" section because he's one of the most colorful examples of creationist charlatans, and he had a huge impact on my intellectual and academic fate. I'm ashamed to admit that as a middle-schooler, I was quite religious and was easily swayed when I found his creationist seminars online. I became a vehement supporter of creationism quite easily, without knowing any actual proof to "back it up" simply because it "made sense" to my ingrained religious sensibilities. Lucky for me I grew out of it, but this child-like mindset is what plagues most creationists and they never "evolve" (pun intended) past that point; In high school I began to learn REAL science and quickly lost my faith after learning to think critically and rationally. I feel so awkward and embarrassed about my brief stint as a creationist but it supplied me with valuable insight into their minds, contrived reasoning, and the anti-creationist "persecution" they so adamantly believe exists. I recently graduated from college with a degree in that evil science creationists hate so much: biology. I focused on ecology ("applied evolution" as I like to call it) and botany. My interest in these fields was heavily sparked by Hovind and my transformation from gullible child into rational freethinker. Anyone else have an embarrassing story like that? Beatgroover (talk) 18:33, 9 October 2013 (UTC)

Of course we all do! How many wrong things did I say or think on my way to my current perfection? Surely hundreds. Lesson? I'm probably still wrong 90% of the time :( ħumanUser talk:Human 02:05, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Urgent priority[edit]

Due to some recent events, can we get a good clean-up of this article? For example, the 11th footnote is a deadlink, and needs to be fixed. Thank you. Reckless Noise Symphony (talk) 12:03, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Yep, this needs to be polished to sheer beauty - David Gerard (talk) 15:57, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I'm just viewing this on my iPad while on vacation and refs 41 & 42 are way too long as they don't wrap. I don't know if this is iPad specific, a mistake in the markup or a bug in the cite template. Any way, it doesn't look good. Can someone with wiki-fu and time tidy this up so that the reference URL is masked in a short hyperlink. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? Moderator 17:13, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
if this article is the subject of legal action, is it appropriate to make any changes to it ? could that be seen as an admission of guilt ? Hamster (talk) 17:19, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Probably not (IANAL, but I live in the UK and would blithely tidy this article) - David Gerard (talk) 17:45, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Just edit and improve as in normal cases. Any focus on it that causes us to make the article better is always a good thing. "Admission of guilt", lol. Might want to justify the use of the words based on "fraud" or remove them. A simple footnote saying we don't mean "fraud" in the legal sense but in the common sense might be enough. I assume we have at least footnoted the pdf of his jailhouse lawyering so far? Apparently he thinks we cost him two and a half million dollars. I fell on the floor laughing. I also chuckled at the fact that he is incarcerated up here in Berlin NH. Should I pay him a visit? Wearing and awesome RATWIKI T-shirt, of course? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:10, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
It's getting better all the time! ħumanUser talk:Human 04:52, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm wondering whether the "Scientific illiteracy" section should be trimmed - by summarizing the issues instead of delving in to a detailed (boring?) refutation. Perhaps a separate page could go in to more detail? Guy Incognito (talk) 03:29, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Liens dammed lines and Hovind.[edit]

The "liens" thing seems to be important in the Hovind case. But I really don't know what one of these is - and I suspect that I won't be alone.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 16:32, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

Liens is when someone makes an official claim to all or partial ownership to property. This prevents sale or ensures they get a portion of that sale. For example, if you don't pay the IRS they can put a lien on your property so that any sale of that property has to pay the IRS the amount on the lien, or prevents sale all together. Private individuals can also do liens, most commonly this is unpaid contract or development work.
Hovind's property was confiscated by the government to help pay back taxes. Hovind filed liens against that property saying he had a vest interest in it. This of course is not legal, and hopefully he will be found in contempt of court for it. Tmtoulouse (talk) 16:38, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
OH OK. I was confused because all the "liens" stuff is in the section "Kent E. Hovind v. Rational Media Foundation" which made me think that we were involved in some way. But now that I read it again I see that it is simply giving background. I do think though with the "pro se lawsuit" filed by him the "liens" which may or may not have been filed by him, the "complaint" and the "summons" along with "John doe editors" we are in danger confusing people who are not familiar with legal terminology - or possibly American legal terminology.--Bob"I think you'll find it's more complicated than that." 16:48, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Since there's now a separate mainspace entry for Kent E. Hovind v. Rational Media Foundation, it might be better for this kind of detail to be addressed there, with brief explanations of the relevant legal terms, rather than on this page, which is already quite long by RW standards. WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 19:01, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
+1 - David Gerard (talk) 20:12, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I'm all for neutral explanations of terms that come from a reputable source like Black's Law Dictionary. As an RW editor, I am appalled that people aren't being more critical of a ranting first person essay that refers to nonsense like the "lawsuit fairy", grossly inaccurately describes the facts and law, and gets into irrelevant tangents just to snarkily smear Hovind. Sure, he's a clown, but an RW article isn't the place to try and dress him down. I'd expect to see the kind of tone presented in that thing on ED. And who the fuck is this Grhh person? Meh. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:35, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
You are objecting to "snarkiness"? That was my impression of this project. The first line in this entry is: "Kent Hovind (or, to use his full academic title, Mr. Kent Hovind)." For the record, I took the template from numerous refutations, like The Search for a Search - Measuring the Information Cost of Higher Level Search that use condescending language, questions and first person. If you don't find my additions helpful, I'll stop adding material and the links to court documents, rulings and news articles. "And who the fuck is this Grhh person" ... is a great way to get new editors. Ghnn (talk) 22:05, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
OK, Ghnn, you cite the most badly structured article I have ever seen on RW to justify... what? More bad writing and incoherent structure? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Ghnn - Nutty is an actual lawyer, so gets tetchy about this sort of thing, particularly when we're getting sued (even if it is by an idiot).
Nutty - please be kind to n00bs! Even ones doing legally-silly things. Well, slightly kind - David Gerard (talk) 12:11, 5 March 2014 (UTC)
A lis pendens is a lien that gets recorded at the county recorder's office against real property over which someone is litigating his interest. The point is to notify anyone else who has, may come to have, or may be considering having an interest in the property notice of proceedings that may affect him.
I can't comment on the lawsuit article itself because of the /w/index.php error, but isn't it generally a bad idea to comment on legal proceedings like this in general? As Nutty has pointed out, one of the defendants is the owner of this wiki, after all. - Grant (Talk) 22:10, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Some basic analysis of the suit's assertions & the background may be a good idea (i.e. what a lien/lis pendens is, what these specific liens were about). Analysis suggesting that the lawsuit is frivolous or vexatious is best kept out of mainspace, at least while the suit is pending. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 13:45, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

Fraud or not fraud?[edit]

It seems like an important element of the story is that Hovind denies that "fraud" is at play, while others assert it is. That debate is presently scattered throughout the article. Should we maybe gather it in one place and highlight it as a specific part of his legal story? TeenageWasteland (talk) 15:49, 5 March 2014 (UTC)

I tried to do so with a footnote (long gone, no problem) by saying "we mean the word fraud in the common sense, not the legal sense". Others may chime in on this concept. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:08, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
As an editor, I'm concerned about lay people doing anything more than neutrally reporting what the allegations of the complaint are. The lawsuit might be a big deal to the RMF, but it's probably not that interesting to anyone else in the grand scheme of things, so I question how much needs to be said beyond simply stating that the suit was filed over his allegations of defamation. That's it. What are they? They seem to be around several uses of the words "fraud" and "fraudulent". These words have both colloquial and legal meanings. I don't know and won't comment on what the law is, and I'm not anyone here's lawyer. However, as a practical matter, considering these words are what caused Hovind to sue in the first place, I'm curious why people wouldn't be more interested in simply preserving the status quo and leaving the thing as it is. You do realize that he sued John Does precisely because they're the ones he thinks added the words he's complaining of, right? You do realize that even if anyone here thinks his lawsuit is frivolous, he will seek the identities of any John Doe in discovery, right? That ought to set off alarm bells. (talk) 02:37, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Unrelated: the Captcha was: "What do you associate Wisconsin with?" The answer was, of course, "cheese". I wonder how many non-Americans would know that? I only did because I'm a huge Packers fan. (talk) 02:38, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Can somebody please explain what "through discovery" or "in discovery" actually means? WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 02:43, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
According to another wiki, in UK civil cases it's called disclosure, if that helps. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 02:49, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
wp:Discovery_(law)#At_the_Federal_level Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 02:50, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Kent Hovind's been busy with lawsuits[edit]

It seems Hovind is unhappy with his prison warden and just sued him: Hovind v. FCI Berlin, Warden. — Unsigned, by: Hopper89 / talk / contribs

For habeas corpus, no less. PERHAPS THEY WILL TELL HIM WHY HE IS IN JAIL - David Gerard (talk) 13:26, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Though actually, a list of every suit he's filed from his cell would be interesting and relevant - David Gerard (talk) 13:29, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
Added two.
cool, ty :-)
The habeas corpus suit is actually asking for an extra six months' early release, on top of the six months he should actually get for being a well-behaved prisoner - David Gerard (talk) 22:16, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

Pleadings and public record[edit]

Rather than link to this 2Peter site, which Hovind's pal controls, for references to pleadings and documents in the public record, I suggest that we upload and wikilink the documents themselves. It's just a matter of time before the 2Peter site owner removes those documents once he sees traffic coming from RW. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 16:24, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

+1 - David Gerard (talk) 22:42, 6 March 2014 (UTC)
+5 - ħumanUser talk:Human 02:24, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
is this Hopper person legit? ħumanUser talk:Human 06:03, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Obviously, clear improvements to an article are deeply suspect and you're right on the money being as obnoxious as possible. WTF? - David Gerard (talk) 13:33, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Dave, what? I asked if a noobie with no user page who is all over this and doesn't know how to sign is legit. Apparently they are? ħumanUser talk:Human 02:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Agreed. All the files need saved and stored. Human, nothing wrong with skepticism. Just check the references. — Unsigned, by: Hopper89 / talk / contribs
On talk pages, please sign your comments using four tildes (~~~~) or by clicking on the sign button: SigButt.png on the toolbar above the edit panel. You can also indent successive talk page comments using one more colon (:) for each line. Thank you. Do we really need all those quotes within footnotes? WěǎšěǐǒǐďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 08:32, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Yes, the quotes support the ideas in the mainspace and given the pro se client's recent legal history, a good idea too. Hopper89 (talk) 16:17, 7 March 2014 (UTC)
Yeah, sadly I think we really do - David Gerard (talk) 19:54, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Hovind's update to his fans on this suit[edit]

Posted to Facebook by fan Gea Ambrosia, forwarded to the RW Facebook group by Robert Baty.

BEFORE you judge me in this matter for what I have done .... (Mt. 7:1) :))

BEFORE you even read what I have done (posted on :))

BEFORE you say, "Oh brother! Hovind is at it again!... :))

BEFORE YOU SAY, "I would never do that!..." (Prov. 18:13)

PLEASE read and consider the following:

1. God made it CLEAR in the 10 commandments (NOT 10 suggestions) "Thou shalt NOT bear false witness." Ex. 20:16; Mt. 19:18; Mk. 10:19; Acts 6:13 and scores of other verses.

2. "The law is good, if a man use it lawfully." I Timothy 1:8.

3. Paul told his preacher boy Titus that some people must be made to "shut up" because they were leading whole houses astray! "Whose mouths must be stopped, who subvert whole houses, teaching things which they ought not (like evolution? or that I broke some law?) for filthy lucre's sake." Titus 1:11. Some of the skeptic and atheist web sites are causing people to doubt God's Word and leading them astray. (See also Psalm 63:11; Rom. 3:19)

4. The children of Israel just wanted to go home after 400 years of slavery but Amalek came out to fight with them. Amalek started it but Moses and the boys explained it and helped them "get the point" (of the sword.) Ex. 17:8-16. Wars of aggression are generally wrong but wars to defend against aggression are generally fine. Don't start a fight but fight back to win if the situation calls for it. Confederate General Forrest said, "Attack! Always attack!" (Same idea in The Art of War and many of Louis Lamoure's books. :))

5. Nehemiah just wanted to build the wall that God had told him to build but a few power hungry morons in town tried to stop him so he had to hold a sword for a while to help them "get the point" as well. (Neh. 4).

6. America has laws (as do other countries) that everyone (including the government) should follow. There are obvious limits to the "freedom of speech" like NOT yelling "FIRE" in a crowded movie theater. Making false and defamatory statements or falsely accusing someone of committing a crime like "fraud" or making statements that are considered "Libel, Libel per Se and Injurious Falsehood" about someone is a crime! They need to be stopped.

7. Jesus said men will "give account" of "every idle word...." Matthew 12:36. If there is "justice" in the courts in America and England, (we have contact info for the two authors in England) these folks will give account (and damages) here, to me (and to the courts) on this one AND they will re-e-e-e-ally give account before God one day! So will YOU and I!

8. All through the Bible God would smite some folks so that others would fear to do the same sin. "Smite a scorner, and the simple will beware." Pro. 19:25. See also Pro. 21:11; 22:10; 24:9.

I'm a peace loving man but... as "Wayne" said in the excellent movie "FireProof"..."It's on now! They done lite a fuse!" Or as the Sackets often say in Louis Lamoure's books, "They brought it to me. They opened the ball so they can dance to the tune!" (I have grown to love Louis' books in here!)

If you find where ANYONE else (anywhere in the world) has published libelous statements about me (like documented in the suit)-not just mean or ugly or stupid statements-I get those all the time- but libelous-accusing me a breaking a law- please copy the entire article and all info you can find on the author and web site owner or founder and we will help them stop lying the same way we are helping the folks at "" understand. I'm done letting them (or anyone else!) get by with it and harming my reputation and the outreach I have for the Lord. Be sure to copy it all since they will probably delete the web site once they are served. No problem, once they publish it, they have broken the law. It's too late!

So-o-o-o-o-o, after my legal team and I read the lies posted about me on "" Feb. 8, 2014 we decided that was ENOUGH. Their lies harm my reputation (and Alex's) and cause folks to not watch my DVDs and get saved. (See Ecclesiastes 10:1)

On Feb. 20, 2014 we mailed in the lawsuit against Rationalwiki Foundation of 122 Girard Av. Albuquerque, NM 87106 and the article authors to the Northern District of Florida Federal Court (where I was tried). Case # 3:14cv94/RV/CJK. You can get a pacer account and follow along as documents are sent in if you like.

I am suing the Rational Wiki Foundation and each of the authors and Alex, who is also lied about in their articles, is suing them separately as well. Two authors are in England so the US Marshals will serve the British Embassy in Washington and their officials in England will serve them there.

My sources tell me the skeptic and atheist web sites are buzzing about the suit. They think it is not going to do anything and they hope I will be given more time in prison over this. We'll see who's laughing in a few months.

We will keep you posted right here on details and developments in this lawsuit. Send comments to

His understanding of the law, and of how to sue UK people from the US, is ... quite remarkable. Can anyone find a suit from Alex? - David Gerard (talk) 19:17, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

How far back do--what would you call them, server logs? data base logs?--anyway, the data that says that edit # 4567 from user: NeckBeardFedoraInMomsBasement was made from IP address 345.567.678 go? To what extent can the webmasters provide meaningful information on individual edits? TeenageWasteland (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
The RecentChanges table goes back a month by default, I think (haven't looked what RW does). We have Squid logs with IPs back to late 2012 (unless they accidentally got deleted - we don't care so much about the versions with IPs, but the anonymised versions would be great to build our own version of, but those may or may not match with the edits themselves. In any case, such things would only be released if RMF was legally required to, in which case your volunteer sysadmins would sigh and do so - David Gerard (talk) 23:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)
That said, the article history (sure Dave you know this!) goes back to its creation, showing every single edit made to a page, with the author's user name or IP address recorded. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:37, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
How much information has been provided to Hovind &/or his attorney? He seems to have somehow established that "two authors are in England" while still apparently believing that the article dates from 8 Feb 2014 with no prior history, which suggests the page history hasn't been looked at properly. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 23:43, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Yes, Alex filed suit, but in Virginia #1:2014-cv-00207. The suit/claims are near identical. According to PACER, the 2014 cases:

MATTHEWS, ALEXANDER OTIS (pla) dcdce 1:2014-cv-00248 550 02/18/2014 02/18/2014 (Order Dismissing Pro Se Case)

Matthews, Alexander Otis (pla) mddce 8:2014-cv-00500 550 02/20/2014 (Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis)

Matthews, Alexander Otis (pet) nhdce 1:2013-cv-00282 530 07/10/2013 01/28/2014

Matthews, Alexander Otis (pla) vaedce 1:2013-cv-00450 550 04/11/2013 02/12/2014

Matthews, Alexander Otis (pla) vaedce 1:2013-cv-01020 550 08/19/2013 01/22/2014 (Order Dismissing Case)

Matthews, Alexander Otis (pla) vaedce 1:2014-cv-00207 550 02/26/2014 (Motion for Leave to Proceed in forma pauperis)

I did the grunt work and the first use of "fraud" on the good mister's page was here. By an IP address. ħumanUser talk:Human 04:02, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
Did you look where it is located? The Netherlands! (also more than two years ago and six years after the Pensacola News Journal used the term about Hovind) I guess Hovind will have to serve another "embassy." Hopper89 (talk) 06:00, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
According to this, it's in Bedford, UK. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. Moderator 15:17, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
According to this, it's in Amsterdam, NL. Hopper89 (talk) 16:58, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
That just seems to be the location of RIPE NCC which is the internet registry (one of a few in the world). The IP address is assigned by RIPE to Sky Broadband in the UK, as per Genghis's link. WëäŝëïöïďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:35, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── By the way, Hovind credited help with the Lis Pendens to Matthews here:

After hearing and reading about the injustice in my case he jumped right on it and 4 days later we filed a "Bivins" lawsuit in the court in S. Carolina. Details for all the legal actions below are posted on Alex is writing a book about the incredible injustice in his case which he is fighting as well. It is called My America and will be on when finished. A few chapters are there now. In May the IRS was threatening (again) to sell the ministry property putting the family in a panic (again). Alex helped me file a "lis pendens" which stops all action on the property until the S.C. lawsuit is resolved.

That should be saved if these files get removed from Hovind's website. Hopper89 (talk) 07:19, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

That's a great quote and indeed must be saved somehow beyond citing it here. Sorry if I doubted you last week, Hopper, but I hope you understand I saw you as a newbie (welcome to the Dollhouse!) all over an important article. Your bona fides are now well known, of course. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:41, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

What is "tax fraud"?[edit]

In the US is there a specific crime called "tax fraud" or is it simply the common layman's term for playing jiggery pokery with your tax returns? Or, a is often the case, is there a specific legal term and a common daily use term? This seems to suggest it's a pretty catch-all concept.--Coffee (talk) 13:06, 9 March 2014 (UTC)

It looks like this is the government link I want. After defining fraud it states: "Tax fraud is often defined as an intentional wrongdoing, on the part of a taxpayer, with the specific purpose of evading a tax known or believed to be owing. Tax fraud requires both: a tax due and owing; and fraudulent intent." That looks clear enough.--Coffee (talk) 16:53, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
And the appeals court wrote: "The government proved that Kent knew the tax laws required the collection and payment of withholding taxes, but he refused to comply . . . the jury was entitled to find that Kent knew about and deliberately violated the tax laws." Hopper89 (talk) 17:05, 9 March 2014 (UTC)
A little light reading to add to Hopper 89's link: the tax crimes handbook. Tax evasion is a specific criminal charge with a specific set of elements that the government must prove. 'Tax evasion' is also a colloqual umbrella term for various tax crimes. Context is key. Similarly there are a number of tax crimes with fraud in their names, but 'tax fraud' is also a colloquial umbrella term for various tax crimes involving fraud. Guy Incognito (talk) 11:08, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

Kent Hovind Sues Us[edit]

This discussion was moved here from RationalWiki:Saloon Bar.

For those who have not seen yet File:Hovind Complaint RationalWiki.pdf. Tmtoulouse (talk) 14:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I suppose it was a matter of time until somebody did. So what do the lawyers think of all these goings on? --Kels (talk) 14:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Blocked. Can you upload it to the wiki itself? Might be good to include in the Kent Hovind article. Zero (talk) 14:49, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
By my reading the court could barely stop themselves from collapsing in hysterical laughter - or have I got it wrong. IANAL. Placeholder (talk) 14:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I can't comment on the merits of a pending Lawsuit, but I can say that regardless of how frivolous (or not) a lawsuit might be, we still have to defend it and that takes resources! Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:00, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Does RW have a legal defence fund? Bismarck (talk) 15:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
It consists of Trent blackmailing Nutty Roux a la Dorian Gray. He then proceeds to show up in the courtroom drunk and without any trousers, and quoting random Latin phrases and ListenerX's less coherent anti-Reds ramblings (the RWF meetings are a weird place). After that, he spouts the Chewbacca defense and slaps the plaintiff with a fish before flying off in his YEC butthurt-powered jetpack.--Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 17:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Pardon me. I do not put forth anti-communist ramblings in Foundation meetings. My ramblings there are mostly to advance the entirely ludicrous proposition that the Foundation's meeting minutes, having been approved for publication, should be published. Mjollnir.svgListenerXTalkerX 05:26, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

However I do want to emphasize this is a great opportunity to make the article the best we can, as it is likely to get press. Tmtoulouse (talk) 15:02, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I'd suggest sending it to media outlets already (Phil Plait, NCSE etc.) The suit features a copypasta of the current text regardless.
With Barbra Streisand's blessing, of course. Osaka Sun (talk) 15:39, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Legally, it's a joke. It falls at the first hurdle, that being Section 230. The Wikimedia Foundation has helpfully won this precise fight using Sec 230 to get a complaint thrown out in summary judgement. Mr Hovind (or, to use his proper academic title, Mr Hovind) could subpoena the RWF for the IPs of anyone who's edited the article ... if we still have them in the logs. Then sue and lose against them personally.

I did the grunt work and the first usage of the word "fraud" was by an IP [1] is an "Easynet" IP. Good luck with "discovery", Kent. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

This could cause us fuss and annoyance, and cost a small amount of money. The most painful bit will be that the trustees now have to actually think seriously about legal threats and how to deal with them. Which is inherently annoying.

It's our/their only job. ħumanUser talk:Human 01:43, 4 March 2014 (UTC)

I fully expect that the skepticsphere will come here in great numbers to look, and may even shower our legal fund with sharpened pennies. So the greatest threat is well-wishers knocking the bloody server over again.Just wait till PZ gets wind of this. Tralalala ... - David Gerard (talk) 16:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

So this is the real deal? As opposed to all previous threats consisting of posts to talk pages going "I'm going to sue!!!111!!!!" Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 16:04, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I tweeted PZ about it about an hour ago, we'll see if anything comes of that. --Kels (talk) 16:08, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
YOU BASTARD AAAAAAAAAA - David Gerard (talk) 16:37, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Kent Hovind is like the gift that keeps on giving to sceptics. If he didn't exist, we'd have to invent him. --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 16:18, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
A wise fictional character once said you can always judge a man by the quality of his enemies. In this case rationalwiki has managed to seriously piss off one of the most intellectually and morally bankrupt yet influential demagogues in creationist history into launching arguably the biggest attack he is capable of (given his imprisoned condition) against the site. Personally I think all those who have contributed to the article and associated pages should be feeling rather proud of their work right about now. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 16:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I was seriously troubled John doe Author would have to pay a fine here, or maybe I should call him by his real name: Dr. John doe Author. Bismarck (talk) 16:35, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Don't lawyers get disbarred for taking up baseless cases like this? --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 16:44, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Considering each claim about Hovind on the page seems to be backed up by reputable (if not straight from Hovind's mouth) sources, coupled with the aforementioned wiki case and accusations of Libel needing some genuine evidence of malicious and intentional lying in print alone (with cases regarding the internet being so much more difficult to peruse), and finally keeping in mind Hovind's habit of issuing baseless lawsuits in the past....yeah this does seem to be a textbook vindictive lawsuit aimed to scare legally un-savvy people into compliance. Considering Hovind's oft stated contempt for basic freedoms and democracy its not surprising to see him acting like a wannabe authoritarian even in prison. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 16:55, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Schlafly's still at it. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. Moderator 17:01, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
You can sue people while you're in prison!? Huh. TIL. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 17:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Why wouldn't you? A prisoner still has most of their legal rights, including property, assets, intellectual property, & the right to legally defend any of these. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:05, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
It is easy to show that John Doe never edited Mr. Hovind's article. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 17:16, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
He's filing it all by himself, pro se - David Gerard (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Could "Berlin Federal Prison Camp" be the greatest return address ever given on a complaint for libel? Hilarity. -- Codeine (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Why does he focus on February 8, 2014? That was a pretty mundane edit. Is it because it happened to have been made by an editor with what appears to be a real name? TeenageWasteland (talk) 17:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Is David Gerard even his real name!? --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 17:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Not every reader checks or understands the page history, but the bottom of the page always says "This page was last modified on [date, time]". The 8th Feb revision was the last edit before a BoN blanked some large sections on 19th Feb, the same date as Hovind's letter of complaint. The page this BoN viewed (before editing) would have said "last modified on 8 February 2014" so he or she may have assumed this was the date of posting. Presumably the BoN was - if not Hovind himself - somebody connected with him who either brought this article to his attention or vice-versa. WēāŝēīōīďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 20:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
That IP resolves to a dynamic address allocated to a CenturyLink subscriber, an American ISP. I suspect that was one of Ken's friends acting on his behalf -- I'm going to laugh extremely hard if Ken tries to use the BoN's wiping as "proof" that RW tried to burn the evidence...before receiving notice of the suit. Of course, it could just be garden-variety wandalism that's of little significance and cleaned up with undo/rollback. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 20:01, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
You've got Demyer on the brain. His name is Kent Hovind. Redchuck.gif ГенгисOur ignorance is God; what we know is science. Moderator 07:39, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
I don't know why I kept missing seeing that t. I think it's because I recognize him by "Hovind" and try not to think too hard about the other details lest the stupid be infectious. On that note, Kendoll suing us would just be depressing to watch. Ochotona princepsnot a pokémon 21:16, 2 March 2014 (UTC)
Can we get him to pay our legals fees, should we win? Because that. would. be. awesome.--"Shut up, Brx." 17:53, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
In theory, almost certainly - this suit is as frivolous as a frivolous thing. In practice, the IRS is first in the queue for any money he has - David Gerard (talk) 19:33, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Obviously he isn't trusted with a printer: he has to write his legal work on a type-writer.... --larron (talk) 17:51, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Welp, here comes the flood! --Kels (talk) 18:40, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I love it. The RationalWiki School of Internet Lawyering and Stuff. You guys are great. Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:20, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

And you are? Just mocking and adding nothing. You might want to stay out of this. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
I've been on the sharp end of enough Intarweb legal threats that I have unfortunately gained a practical understanding of this stuff ... tell you what, escaping unscathed from legal threats from Scientology means NOTHING LESSER CAN FAZE ME (which is why I use my real name everywhere) - David Gerard (talk) 21:25, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

I love the smell of SLAPP suits in the morning. It smells like, Victory. --Revolverman (talk) 21:36, 28 February 2014 (UTC)

Tell me, Revolverman. How much does it cost to pay a lawyer in another state to litigate even a frivolous case through summary judgment? Is that victory? Nutty Roux100x100 anarchy symbol.svg 21:48, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Sometimes, it doesn't cost anything...if you raise the Popehat signal. Seriously, it's his raison d'etre. --Castaigne (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Okay. Is it a tinfoil Popehat? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 15:29, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Hovind is basically judgement-proof at present; filing pro-se gibberish costs him nothing and passes the time. It is possible he will have money in the future (e.g. from fans), but right now he just isn't effectively sanctionable. Unless we have to properly lawyer up, in which case we could properly propose he be ruled a vexatious litigant. But don't expect that to come easy - David Gerard (talk) 22:14, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
I made an edit that I think makes sense, in terms of summary judgement. [2] Common language versus legal terms and all. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:08, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
Presumably there's a good likelihood we'll be awarded costs if it is basically the case that this gets thrown out in summary judgement? I don't really know how the US court system handles such things. Other than losing for whatever reason, is there any case where we'll actually end up out of pocket here? --JeevesMkII The gentleman's gentleman at the other site 22:31, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
And who would pay the costs? Hovind? He's essentially broke, as I understand it. The state? Not likely. So, even if we win, the costs might remain, or so I gather. Octo8 (talk) 22:38, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Can we troll Andy Schalfy to take the case? This thing will get only more hilarious and, with Andy as Hovind's lawyer, we'll be guaranteed to win. --Night Jaguar (talk) 22:52, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
As unlikely as this is to happen....I reaaaaaaalllly hope this somehow happens. Judge HoldenThe Judge Smiles 23:32, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
Federal judges in at least some districts, and especially the ones where Federal penitentiaries are found, often examine prisoner lawsuits for facial merit, especially since they're very often accompanied by motions for leave to proceed in forma pauperis. Wait to see if a summons actually issues. - Smerdis of Tlön (talk) 03:44, 1 March 2014 (UTC)
Kent Hovind sues Rationalwiki. James Randi's forum has noticed this. Proxima Centauri (talk) 08:54, 1 March 2014 (UTC)

Something or other is going on with Hovind and PZ Myers now, see Kent Hovind challenges me. Proxima Centauri (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

On the merits of Hovind's claims (sticky)[edit]

It is worth drawing attention to this post about the liens:

(3) Hovind's complaint is that the RationalWiki article writes that he filed fraudulent liens to keep the govt from seizing his property; he disputes both that the liens were fraudulent and that he filed them.
The second of those claims is actually so stupid that it's funny. Hovind claims that he couldn't have filed them, since he was in jail when they were filed. He apparently forgot about this letter to the case agent, enclosing copies of the liens he signed. Which liens actually state that "Kent E. Hovind asks that this Memorandum of Lis Pendens be recorded as a lien", and were sent to the County Clerk of Escambia County, FL.
As to the first claim: Hovind notes that the District Court didn't find the liens "fraudulent". It is true that the opinion didn't use that word. Instead, the Court wrote that "Without question, [Hovind's] lis pendens were wrongfully filed" because the properties had already been forfeited and therefore no longer belonged to Hovind. The Court notes that Hovind's actions may well constitute a contempt, and invites the govt to file a proper order to show cause - which it has since done. But no, the Court did not use the word "fraudulent".
What a maroon.

— Unsigned, by: Ghnn / talk / contribs 2014-03-03T01:43:24‎

Regarding "tax fraud," that is the term used by the Pensacola News Journal and even the WorldNetDaily:

Jury deliberations took about three hours. A federal jury has convicted Kent Hovind and his wife, Jo, of tax fraud.

A Florida evangelist who founded a creationist theme park but was accused of tax fraud because he called his employees missionaries and paid them in cash has been convicted on those counts.

There are many more sources that use the phrase besides rationalwiki. Ghnn (talk) 15:19, 3 March 2014 (UTC)

That is gold. Perhaps we should cite those uses in the article - David Gerard (talk) 16:42, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Added along with the US Tax Court ruling about Jo Hovind's appeal: "The record overwhelmingly establishes that she acted with fraudulent intent". Ghnn (talk) 18:29, 3 March 2014 (UTC)
Absolutely add those cites! And the quotes! ħumanUser talk:Human 02:17, 4 March 2014 (UTC)
A search through Google books for Hovind "tax fraud" produces these:
"A year later, Hovind would be convicted of tax fraud and sentenced to ten years in prison." (Lauri Lebo (2009) The Devil in Dover Page 144)
"Dinosaur Adventure Land, a park whose owner, Kent Hovind, was imprisoned in 2009 for tax fraud, contended that the dinosaurs were all killed by Noah's Flood, neatly explaining their extinction." (Brook Wilensky-Lanford (2011) Paradise Lust: Searching for the Garden of Eden Page 204)
"Capping a four-year criminal investigation, a Pensacola federal court in January sentenced the globe-trotting evangelist minister, creationist activist and businessman Kent Hovind to 10 years on 58 counts of tax fraud, including failure to pay $845,000 in employee-related taxes and threatening investigators." ((2007) Intelligence Report: A Project of the Southern Poverty Law Center, Issues 125-128 pg 4)
"On November 2, 2006, a federal jury found flamboyant young-earth creationist Kent Hovind and his wife Jo guilty on all counts in their federal tax fraud trial." (Reports of the National Center for Science Education, Volumes 25-26)
In chart: Kent Hovind, convictions: "Nov 2003, tax fraud (58 counts), FL. 10 years" (Jennifer Jefferis (2011) Armed for Life Page 80)
If that is not enough there are dozens of blogs all over the net that use the term "tax fraud" of which here are a few examples of those:
"Jurors convicted Kent Hovind on 58 counts of tax fraud last night." (November 06, 2006 "Pensacola Evangelist Who Founded Dinosaur Theme Park Convicted of Tax Fraud" The Rev. Kent Hovind Reporting Blog)
"Hovind is currently serving a ten year prison sentence as a result of a conviction on charges of tax fraud in 2007." (Bob Cull (February 25, 2014) "High School Biology Teacher BUSTED Using Creationist Propaganda To Teach Science Class"--BruceGrubb (talk) 14:13, 24 April 2014 (UTC)

And from Hovind's cellmate[edit]

File:Matthews Libel Suit.pdf - this one filed in Virginia - David Gerard (talk) 00:21, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

Can we get some big city pro boner lawyers like at the ACLU or NCSE or FFRF or something to fight this for us? Might get better press that way. Occasionaluse (talk) 19:24, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
You will be pleased to know your esteemed Board of Trustees is looking into that and alerting useful people to the serious possibility (seeing as dealing with this sorta shit is what the BoT is actually for). The present situation is that there's yet to be an attempt at service, let alone successful service.
The immediate threat model is that Hovind or Otis achieve successful service, and then we have to move quickly, because even ludicrously bogus suits like these would need to actually be dealt with in such a case (and that's the surprise Hovind was trying to spring on us before a helpful RW fan got wind of his suit and alerted us).
The longer-term threat model is that some day we're going to get legal threats from people who aren't hilariously incompetent, so it's a really good idea to get ourselves sorted out now. (Again, BoT's actual job.)
Personally I predict that if we get successful service and need serious help, the skepticsphere will rally to help us. But we do need to plan ahead for this, so we are - David Gerard (talk) 09:56, 26 March 2014 (UTC)
In that respect, the BoT can't quality control the entire wiki. All we need to do is be willing to respond to criticism. In many cases the wiki has responded to that well - e.g., dynamiclear, though that also rested on them not being douchebags who jumped straight to suing. But there have been cases of someone dropping a drive-by article and the subject of the article picking it up and complaining about it faster than regular editors could (suspicious, yes). In that latter case, the BoT can't really just vet every article at the beginning. Scarlet A.pngpathetic 11:24, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Which is precisely why Section 230 - David Gerard (talk) 12:45, 4 April 2014 (UTC)

Popehat helped PZ Myers. Proxima Centauri (talk) 16:32, 10 April 2014 (UTC)

Another defendant?[edit]

File:Hovind v RationalWiki Case 3.14-cv-00094-RV-CJK Document 4i.pdf - we only have the response to that as yet, but apparently he tried adding another defendant and the court told him to go away and write it in something other than crayon. (Dig the signature - even the judge couldn't be bothered.) - David Gerard (talk) 18:32, 1 April 2014 (UTC)

The document is not double-spaced as required by N.D. Fla.Loc.R. 5.1(B)(3). = Inmate, go back to your typewriter Alain (talk) 19:17, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

Mr. Hovind was in the focus of our interest in March 2014...[edit]

Pages at RW in Mar 2014
Edits per page at RationalWiki in March 2014:
  • only non-anonymous edits are taken into account
  • slices indicate edits by top 10 editors for each page, shaded area the edits of all others

--larron (talk) 20:30, 2 April 2014 (UTC)

By "our", I guess you mean the three single-purpose accounts that are responsible for most of the last 400 edits to that page? WeaseloidWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 21:56, 2 April 2014 (UTC)
Plot twist: Hopper89 is bizarro DeMyer. --Raysenn Get the paddles, he's having a cancer! 00:50, 4 April 2014 (UTC)
Why are there two circles for Hovind? Nebuchadnezzar (talk) 07:45, 6 April 2014 (UTC)
One represents the article, the other its talk page (see legend). --larron (talk) 07:51, 6 April 2014 (UTC)

more paperwork[edit]

Mr Hovind notices the RWF is now the RMF, and asks to add RMF as a defendant: File:Hovind adds defendant in RW libel suit.pdf - David Gerard (talk) 09:52, 15 April 2014 (UTC)

Too sticky?[edit]

This section is taking up half the Saloon Bar & only updated sporadically. Can we either unsticky it or move it somewheres else like the Kent Hovind article talk page? WėąṣėḷőįďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 11:58, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Give it its own page (a sub of KH's talk page?) sticky-linked, obviously, from the talk page. Scream!! (talk) 12:15, 20 April 2014 (UTC)
Done. Sprocket J Cogswell (talk) 12:35, 20 April 2014 (UTC)

Re: crime of creationism[edit]

I have a feeling we should change the caption under his mug shot. It currently states: "Kent Hovind's mugshot. Unfortunately, Creation Science is not a crime. Fortunately, tax evasion is." This doesn't seem like what we *really* want. Discredited, sure- constantly, in fact. But a crime?

Well based on what Columbia University Press' 2007 book Evolution: what the fossils say and why it matters has to say regarding Jack Chick's Big Daddy? which in 2002 cited Kent Hovind as being "typical of the genre" says on the matter one can understand the position. Phrases like "misleading and dishonest", "deceptive and misleading", and "an obvious attempt at trickery and distortion" leave little doubt as to the author's view of what is going on.--BruceGrubb (talk) 05:13, 22 April 2014 (UTC)

Hovind writes PZ Myers and Myers replies[edit]

Not sure if this is worth adding to the article, but he does mention RationalWiki. Hopper89 (talk) 18:22, 10 March 2014 (UTC)

It could be, but the letter reads as "whining" so it could be politely skipped. Zero (talk) 18:47, 10 March 2014 (UTC)
It should be linked (or even copied for thoroughness). I'm not finished reading but "I did NOT break any laws but the government probably did" made me fall off my chair. Twice. Of course, Kentie Baby, no one in Federal Prison ever broke any laws, and I am sure you were framed by corrupt government agents. Is there a better way of typing "I am LAUGHING OUT LOUD"? Perhaps the spear shaker said it best, when he wrote "The lady doth protest too much, methinks". ħumanUser talk:Human 02:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Damn, the more I read, the more Kent in gaol writes like Kendoll in Buffalo. Read points 13-18... ħumanUser talk:Human 02:54, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
PZ Myers totally mans up with "7. You are a convicted fraud." A complete invitation to a similar crappy lawsuit. My hero. ħumanUser talk:Human 02:58, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
There are undoubtedly a few creationists who appear, to all extents and purposes, quite smart (apart from the YEC elephant in the room). However, Hovind is undoubtedly dumb on all counts; and not just plain dumb, but Karajou-level dumb. Redchuck.gif Генгисpillaging Moderator 09:34, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Hovind's latest reply to Myers is interesting:

You are either lying (again) or unable to understand simple English here. I have NEVER been convicted of fraud. There was no fraud in my case. You (and the folks at “Rational” Wiki) seem to like that word for some reason but it does not apply. Words have meanings PZ. You (and the rationalwiki folks) seem to play fast and loose with words. Like the word “science” for example. You freely include a lot of religion in with your science. I think “fraud” may apply to a person who claims to teach “biology” yet routinely mixes his religious beliefs in class about all life forms having a common ancestor or humans being related to bananas and humans being a fish (as you stated in the “Evolution vs. God” DVD). Maybe “charlatan” is a better word for these false teachers. Maybe the courts will explain to the folks at “Rational” Wiki that words have meanings and it is not good to falsely accuse someone of the crime of fraud (unless you have proof).

Hovind is calling biology teachers "frauds." Someone alert the National Association of Biology Teachers... Hopper89 (talk) 22:20, 13 March 2014 (UTC)

And the lawsuit from Mr Hovind's cellmate[edit]

File:Matthews Libel Suit.pdf - this one filed in Virginia - David Gerard (talk) 00:19, 11 March 2014 (UTC)

I can't access that pdf; getting a 404. ŴêâŝêîôîďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 00:45, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Nice work! How many more convicted felons can we get sued by this month? Beware the Ides, my criminal non-friends. ħumanUser talk:Human 03:12, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
LOL, "Alexander OTIS Matthews". The irony is strong on that. Redchuck.gif ГенгисIs the Pope a Catholic? Moderator 09:49, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
Even their typos are the same in the filings. As already mentioned above, but relevant to the complaints in both claims: In May 2013, Hovind wrote: "Kent E. Hovind asks that this Memorandum of Lis Pendens be recorded as a lien" and later noted:

After hearing and reading about the injustice in my case he jumped right on it and 4 days later we filed a "Bivins" lawsuit in the court in S. Carolina. Details for all the legal actions below are posted on Alex is writing a book about the incredible injustice in his case which he is fighting as well. It is called My America and will be on when finished. A few chapters are there now. In May the IRS was threatening (again) to sell the ministry property putting the family in a panic (again). Alex helped me file a "lis pendens" which stops all action on the property until the S.C. lawsuit is resolved.

I also see an order has been made by the judge in Hovind's S. Carolina case. Can anyone pull up that? Hopper89 (talk) 14:40, 11 March 2014 (UTC)
"REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION re 22 MOTION to Dismiss filed by Mr Dial, William G Anderson. It is recommended that the defendants' motion to dismiss be granted. Objections to R&R due by 3/24/2014." PDF is here Guy Incognito (talk) 00:43, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
Thanks for posting that. It seems that despite Hovind's vast knowledge of the law, for the last nearly 8 months he has been misspelling "bivens" as "bivins." And despite claims in Matthews' lawsuit about the case being in discovery, the magistrate is recommending the case be dismissed base on the US government's motion in the fall. IANAL, doesn't discovery start after the government rules in a motion to dismiss the case, not before? Hopper89 (talk) 13:54, 12 March 2014 (UTC)
In October 2013, Hovind wrote:

... my new legal helper had a brilliant idea and on May 29, 2013 I filed a lis pendens in the county office to stop the sale of any other properties until the lawsuit in S. Car. is decided since the outcome of that may overturn all the rest. On Oct. 2, 2013 Judge Rodgers ordered the lis pendens lifted. As I understand the procedure, the state court of Florida will now have to notify me since federal judges don't control property issues, state courts do, and I can then object and pursue a remedy in state court.

In February 2014, Hovind wrote:

... I sent out a blog on Feb 1 asking folks to write the Supreme Court on behalf of my 'celli' and friend and legal helper Alexander Matthews.

Interesting term, "legal helper". Hopper89 (talk) 01:41, 27 March 2014 (UTC)

──────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────── This article has some more detail about Matthews, talking more about his mortgage scheme and explains even before that:

Matthews has a history of state real estate violations in Virginia dating back to 1999 just three years after he obtained his first real estate license, according to public records filed in the state of Virginia. His license to practice real estate sales was revoked in 2007 after the state licensing regulatory commission found 14 violations of state laws and regulations.

Escambia Clerk of Courts links dead[edit]

The Escambia Clerk of Courts document links, like this, are dead because the PDFs aren't stable links. The references should just link to the database and name the document number so people can check it. Hopper89 (talk) 15:10, 14 March 2014 (UTC)


SCOTUS denies hearing the case. Should we discuss the legal history of the case at all? — Unsigned, by: / talk / contribs

Add to article?[edit]

According to a US Department of Justice press release, in January 2007 a judge "sentenced Kent E. Hovind, owner and operator of Creation Science Evangelism Enterprises/Ministry (CSE), to ten years in prison for tax fraud" (Source: Department of Justice, Tax Division Enforcement Results April 2006 to April 2007). As this description comes from the government, it should be added to the beginning?

Probably belongs in the list of people using the term "tax fraud" - David Gerard (talk) 10:29, 14 July 2014 (UTC)

Sound familiar?[edit]

USDOJ: "A federal jury in Omaha, Nebraska, found a Pelham, Georgia, man guilty late yesterday of seven counts of conspiracy to file and filing false liens against two U.S. District Court judges, the U.S. Attorney for the District of Nebraska, two Assistant U.S. Attorneys and an Internal Revenue Service (IRS) special agent, the Justice Department announced. ... engaged in a conspiracy to retaliate against federal officials involved in the criminal investigation and prosecution of David and Bernita Kleensang, associates of Due and Kozak who were convicted of federal tax crimes in 2012."

No. It doesn't sound the least bit familiar. Hovind didn't do anything remotely like this. Nutty Roux (talk) 15:32, 6 September 2014 (UTC)
Relevant to the sovereign citizen/freeman on the land articles, not to Hoving.--ZooGuard (talk) 17:14, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

The Pensacola News Journal: Kent Hovind and Paul Hansen (of Omaha, Nebraska) are "charged with mail fraud and criminal contempt for interfering with the sale of Pensacola properties Hovind was forced to forfeit as a result of the 2006 case . . . filed liens on nine of Hovind's forfeited properties."

"and also like O.J. Simpson"[edit]

Did Hovind actually compare himself to Simpson? If not, I suggest this probably shouldn't be there - David Gerard (talk) 16:12, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Removed. WèàšèìòìďWeaselly.jpgMethinks it is a Weasel 17:29, 6 September 2014 (UTC)

Hovind 2006 trial transcript[edit]

Up at last - the complete transcript of Kent and Jo Hovind's 2006 tax trial, all 1853 tedious pages. Not previously available on the web. Includes various related filings - David Gerard (talk) 11:33, 10 January 2015 (UTC)

"Who are the experts?"[edit]

Found this video, is the discussion brought up worth mentioning in the article? I myself found it quite enjoyable to see Hovind stumble about so much and be made a fool of. ( - Nergali (talk) 01:22, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Activities since he was released?[edit]

What's he been up to since he got out of prison? I would imagine he's trying to lay low due to his probation. Master NecromancerWhat is dead may never die 22:41, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Trying to get established on YouTube, challenging atheists to seven-minute 'debates'. He's already accused Aron Ra of being 'too drunk' to debate him, or some such. If you don't mind waiting a while for me to get my full resources going, I can dig up some videos and other links.
Kent is unrepentant. He's not really a very introspective personality. I almost want to call him some sort of philosophical zombie--He has shown almost no capacity to learn or grow or change. His responses are nigh-on hardwired into him and he doesn't know how to act when off his personal social interaction map. Check it out. --Maxus (talk) 23:19, 5 August 2015 (UTC)
He's started making YouTube videos. The first one is here (talk) 20:28, 16 August 2015 (UTC)
He seems to LOVE YouTube. It looks like he's putting out like two half hour videos per day over there. (talk) 22:40, 20 August 2015 (UTC)

Scientific illiteracy - calculation[edit]

If the surface is 5.10^32 A^2 and 1 molecule's surface is 10 A^2 (although it seems to be little less, but that's not so important). The ratio would be 5.10^31-times, i.e. 5.10^31 molecules, which is 83 333 333 moles. That is 1 499 999 994 grams. That is about 1500 tons. Thus the author is off by two orders. 08:18, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Kent and Christian Education[edit]

If he wanted a degree in Christian Education why not go to an accredited college? Plenty to choose from that have Christian education and are accredited.--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 16:27, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Read his dissertation and make an evaluation on if he could pass freshman college level English at an accredited university. -EmeraldCityWanderer (talk) 17:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Accredited colleges generally prefer people who have completed their high school education, or at least people with an IQ that is higher than 42. I fear Hovind passes neither of those tests. --JorisEnter (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)
Good point, what was I thinking?--Rationalzombie94 (talk) 02:03, 5 January 2016 (UTC)


This article looks like it's worthy of silver to me. Anyone else?--JorisEnter (talk) 10:01, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

It's certainly been picked over enough reference-wise - David Gerard (talk) 15:55, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
I'd not only support Silver, I'd support Gold (compare in length and comprehensiveness of text to this Gold-rated article of a similar nature). Anyone with me on that? Goat knows we should front more with the great content that we actually have sitting around. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:43, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
It probably meets most of the silver criteria, apart from the illustrations.--JorisEnter (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2016 (UTC)

Cover story[edit]

So how far to Gold? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 23:23, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
The criteria for gold articles are:
  • The topic is highly relevant to RW's mission.
  • Article is essentially a "go to" resource for the topic at hand.
  • Article covers all aspects of the topic at hand in-depth.
  • It is fully referenced with appropriate internal and external links, and categories.
  • Where necessary and possible, the article is supported by others that are of a good quality (e.g., homeopathy and water memory).
  • The cover status has been discussed and agreed on the talk page. This last criterion is the most important.
It is super-relevant to the mission, probably a go-to resource for information on Hovind, I'm pretty sure it has good coverage of all the aspects of Hovind's activities, is fully referenced, and is supported by at least the article on his dissertations, plus of course a truckload of articles on creationism. I'd say it can be upgraded to gold status.--JorisEnter (talk) 10:19, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I agree; it lives up to everything on that list (and here's the talkpage discussion). That makes two for gold, then. David (and/or anyone), thoughts? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 11:07, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll put up a notice in the bar to get some more people to comment on this.--JorisEnter (talk) 11:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)
Toss in a mention of the Shakespeare article while you're at it, will ya? That thing deserves to go Gold so bad (in this editor's humble opinion)... Reverend Black Percy (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. The article is currently a badly organized hitpiece. If it was a well-organized hitpiece, I'd support. To wit:

1 Qualifications, or lack thereof
2 Scientific illiteracy

Two sections on qualifications?

4 Legal problems from 1995 to 2006
4.1 Criminal tax-related convictions in 2006
4.2 Other tax and legal issues
5 Activity in prison from 2007 to present
5.1 Phone calls, blogging, books and Youtube interviews
5.2 Lawsuits, legal filings and criminal contempt
5.3 Kent E. Hovind v. RationalMedia Foundation, et al
5.4 Mail fraud and criminal contempt charges and trial

Why break up his history into "free acts" and "imprisoned acts"? Moreover, the amount of space dedicated to dredging up legal failures of Hovind is about as long as those documenting his beliefs. Just because he's a shitty person doesn't mean his beliefs are shitty. The debunking should be longer than the hitpiece.

3 The $250,000 Challenge

First, why this section doesn't fall into one of the history sections boggles me. Second, surely this could go into a section on "creationism", to underscore how crazy AND how much of a deceitful debater he is?

6 Beliefs
6.1 Conspiracies and "Sovereign American"
6.2 Independent Baptist
6.3 The "Hovind Theory"
6.4 Lunar recession
6.5 Dinosaurs
6.6 Biblical contradictions
6.7 Misc.

Putting this all at the bottom is the final proof that this article is a hitpiece -- the fact that he's a lunatic apparently matters more than what his lunacy is, and why it's wrong. Each "section" of Hovind's beliefs should be its own (eg, Creationism, Sovereign Citizenry, etc.).

Fuzzy "Cat" Potato, Jr. (talk/stalk) 22:56, 30 July 2016 (UTC)

"Qualifications" should be kept as a separate section IMO, because (a) for anyone speaking on science-related topics qualifications (or in this case the lack thereof) are relevant, and (b) Hovind is kind of (in)famous for his "dissertation".
"Beliefs" should be split up into one part dealing with his creationist beliefs and one about all the other nonsense (conspiracy nuttiness and such), and "Scientific illiteracy" and "the $250K challenge" should be merged into that first section.
I'm not entirely sure what to do with the two sections about his legal stuff: while they kind of deal with the same topic, they cover enough stuff on their own (the first his tax problems, the second pretty much all his other activities).--JorisEnter (talk) 11:32, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
First off, I think it's relevant to start out with his qualifications since that's also relevant as part of his bio - quite apart from the fact that he likes to pass himself off as an authority (this is similar to the structure of the William Lane Craig article). So my suggestion is a structure something like this:
  1. Qualifications
  2. Dr. Dino: Creationism & The "Hovind Theory" (with subsections for the relevant bits)
  3. The $250,000 Challenge (could be rolled into the creationism section)
  4. Other Beliefs (with subsections for each of them)
  5. Legal Problems
  6. Jail Time (could be combined with his legal antics into something like Legal Problems & Incarceration)
  7. Subsequent activities
My idea behind this is to start out with the relevant fact that Hovind is absolutely unqualified to pronounce with any sort of authority on scientific matters; then go on to his creationist tosh (for which he is arguably most famous, placing the videos and copyright sections here); then delve into his non-creationist ideas, such as the sovereign citizen (SC) stuff; and then point out that it is his SC acrobatics that ultimately got him in trouble with the law and in jail. The final section is then easily written and updated with his latest antics (probably more creationism and SC), so this last section is probably going to be rather short.
How does that idea sound to the rest of the mob? ScepticWombat (talk) 12:52, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Seems like a fine reorganisation of the article. The 250k challenge should be a subsection of the creationism bit. "Legal problems" and "Jail time" can probably be kept separate.--JorisEnter (talk) 13:07, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Another problem is that it's not clear whether Creation Science Evangelism was renamed, and whether the father or the son controls it. The Creation Science Evangelism page should be expanded (or if not subsumed within the Hovind page) since this would be an important supporting article. Bongolian (talk) 07:03, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
I agree-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 07:06, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

This needs a cover abstract.-DιαμοπdDιςc1(talk) 07:08, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Good ideas all, but what do you think about my suggestions for reorganising the article? I'm not going to waste time reformatting it if there is not some sort of consensus on a new structure. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:48, 1 August 2016 (UTC)
A draft of the reorganisation: User:ScepticWombat/Kent Hovind. ScepticWombat (talk) 09:30, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Much better. Thank you! 10:54, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I've reformatted the article based on my userpage version, incl. Fuzzy's additions and incorporating the Creation Science Evangelism stub that Fuzzy has already replaced with a Kent/Eric Hovind fork (nice work, Fuzzy!). ScepticWombat (talk) 13:27, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Great work, guys! Time to whip up a cover abstract and get this thing certified as Gold? Reverend Black Percy (talk) 16:45, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Give it a few days for any further nitpicks - just put out a last call on the bar - David Gerard (talk) 21:15, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Remade the intro so that it's more cover-y. Improvements welcome. FU22YC47P07470 (talk/stalk) 23:42, 3 August 2016 (UTC)

Nobody has commented on /r/rationalwiki, and all /r/atheism comments have been incorporated. Cover time? Herr FuzzyKatzenPotato (talk/stalk) 20:24, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
I have no objection. (That AMA from one of his school pupils is gold.) - David Gerard (talk) 10:54, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
Support covering as well. The reorganisation has greatly improved readability and general niceness. That sign thingy is awesome as well.--JorisEnter (talk) 17:12, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
@DG Yeah, absolutely. Never mind his appearance on the friggin' Ali G show! I also support covering. We appear to have wide consensus now; let's do this people. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 20:47, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

Has been golded and coverstory-ed.Applaud, tympani! Sound, trumpets!--JorisEnter (talk) 20:57, 5 August 2016 (UTC)

I emailed PZ Myers and he gave it a plug. With suggestions! - David Gerard (talk) 12:45, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

PZ Myers on Kent Hovind[edit]

PZ Myers mentions RationalWiki and has material that could perhaps improve this article. See Any story of Kent Hovind needs more Nazi imagery</ref> Proxima Centauri (talk) 14:56, 6 August 2016 (UTC)

Already added it to RW:mentions, and added a quote from PZ to the Kent Hovind article (since DG already linked to this right above). Oh well. Reverend Black Percy (talk) 15:05, 6 August 2016 (UTC)