Freethought & Rationalism Archive

Nialler · 02-04-2002, 09:12 PM

It might be logical to pay the fine on his behalf if the law allows it. I would:

Annoy him no end,
Keep the authorities happy,
Annoy him no end,

and,

Scuttle his attempt to fleece his followers of even more money.

Also, and not insignificantly, it would annoy him no end.

Philosoft · 02-05-2002, 10:44 AM

I normally just lurk here but I thought I might be able to help. I live in Escambia County and I am an old friend of the building inspector who has Hovind's case. I just called her and left a message to call me back at work. I was going to ask her about the details of the case but I thought I would ask if anyone has anything specific he or she would like to know? You can post here or send me a message.

theyeti · 02-05-2002, 10:50 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft:
I normally just lurk here but I thought I might be able to help. I live in Escambia County and I am an old friend of the building inspector who has Hovind's case. I just called her and left a message to call me back at work. I was going to ask her about the details of the case but I thought I would ask if anyone has anything specific he or she would like to know? You can post here or send me a message.

Alright alright! If your friend doesn't mind, give us the whole blow by blow account. It would be best if she emails you and gives you permission to post the entire content of the email here. You may wish to give her the url of Hovind's response, and have her point out any misleading rhetoric/lies that appear there (ignoring the absurd Biblical claims). I would also like to know about the behavior of Hovind and co.; specifically, just how much of a jerk he's acted like over this. Don't spare us the details!

theyeti

Peez · 02-05-2002, 12:00 PM

Quote:

Philosoft:
I normally just lurk here but I thought I might be able to help. I live in Escambia County and I am an old friend of the building inspector who has Hovind's case. I just called her and left a message to call me back at work. I was going to ask her about the details of the case but I thought I would ask if anyone has anything specific he or she would like to know? You can post here or send me a message.

Drool.

Peez

RufusAtticus · 02-05-2002, 01:11 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Philosoft:
I normally just lurk here but I thought I might be able to help. I live in Escambia County and I am an old friend of the building inspector who has Hovind's case. I just called her and left a message to call me back at work. I was going to ask her about the details of the case but I thought I would ask if anyone has anything specific he or she would like to know? You can post here or send me a message.

PLEASE, PLEASE, PLEASE. Like theyeti said!!!!!!!

Philosoft · 02-05-2002, 01:57 PM

I was unable to talk to her today but I remain undaunted. I shall resume my efforts in the morning. I don't intend to let you guys down.

Philosoft · 02-06-2002, 08:21 AM

I have spoken with Ms. Pelotte, but I would ask that you good folks please be discreet when you discuss this topic anywhere else because she is concerned about the use of her name in conjuction with an ongoing investigation. That said, she wasn't able to tell me much that's not public record.

Matters of relative importance:

--She is not a building inspector as indicated on Hovind's site. She is a code-enforcement officer who's sole job in this case was to serve notice that the building had no permits. She has no jurisdiction to decide whether or not the building meets code so everything that Hovind says about a) inviting her to do an inspection and b) her having no jurisdiction to serve the citation is either irrelevant or flat wrong.

--Hovind's assertions about non-incorporation are irrelevant. Any structure in Escambia County, save certain small storage buildings and farm edifices, are subject to permitting. Even the Amish and Anabaptists, despite his assertions to the contrary. Further, Hovind's juxtaposition of state and county regulations is disingenuous. The only regulations that are relevant are those of Escambia County. Disney's alleged lack of permitting is irrelevant.

There are, I think, 2 articles that appeared in the local paper last month about this incident. I am currently trying to get copies of those articles. I will post any relevant information they may contain.

NialScorva · 02-06-2002, 09:21 AM

Matthew 22:17-21
Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

hezekiah jones · 02-06-2002, 10:28 AM

I read portions of Hovind's little screed to my wife. To her, much of the language smacked of <a href="http://www.nizkor.org/hweb/orgs/american/adl/paranoia-as-patriotism/posse-comitatus.html" target="_blank">Posse Comitatus</a>, an outfit that is continually filing nuisance lawsuits against various officers of the state around here. The Posse's claims about jurisdiction are identical to Hovind's.

I searched ["Posse Comitatus" Hovind] and sure enough came up with a little gem from the U.S. District Court for the Northern Division of Florida, Pensacola Division. The citation appears on the Militia Watchdog's website, under the heading, "<a href="http://www.adl.org/mwd/suss4.htm" target="_blank">Idiot Legal Arguments Part Four</a>."

The case, Hovind v. Kelly, is apparently pursuant to Dr. Dino's notorious altercations with the Internal Revenue Service. Here are a few quotations from Hovind v. Kelly, which deals with a third consecutive dismissal of Hovind's claims against various members of the IRS, the U.S. Justice Department, and various local government officials (the Posse folks habitually cast a wide net).

I've deleted the numerous references to pertinent caselaw, which are cited to support virtually every statement in this opinion. Boy, is this guy hopeless. His method of argument appears to be just about as successful in the courts as it is on his celebrated videotapes.

Quote:

Pro se plaintiff Kent E. Hovind filed his original complaint in this Court on December 18, 1996. Defendants filed two motions to dismiss, and I granted both motions, with leave to amend, on the ground that it was impossible to glean from plaintiff's complaint either a factual or legal basis for a claim.

Plaintiff filed an amended complaint on January 28, 1997. He again alleges jurisdiction "under the American Flag of Peace." Apparently, plaintiff is alleging that the IRS defendants, assisted by the Deputy Sheriff defendants, entered his property and seized three automobiles and a trailer in violation of his constitutional rights, while executing an IRS tax lien. He also again alleges a conspiracy under Title 42, United States Code, Section 1985. Defendants have again moved for dismissal of the amended complaint. Although there are numerous deficiencies in plaintiff's amended complaint, I need only address a few in order to rule on the present motions to dismiss. In so ruling, I will liberally construe the allegations in plaintiff's complaint, holding the complaint to a "less stringent standard than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers."

First, plaintiff has failed to allege a claim under Title 42, United States Code, Section 1985, against either the federal defendants or the state defendants. A claim under Section 1985 is a prerequisite to maintaining an action under Title 42, United States Code, Section 1986. More important, it does not appear that plaintiff will be able to properly state a claim for a violation of Section 1985 or Section 1986 because the defendants' actions were not motivated by a racial or other class-based invidiously discriminatory animus.

Second, although I will assume plaintiff's claims against the individual state defendants arise under Title 42, United States Code, Section 1983, despite his failure to so allege, plaintiff has not asserted a valid claim against the state defendants under that section. A successful Section 1983 action requires a showing that the conduct complained of (1) was committed by a person acting under color of state law and (2) deprived the complainant of rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution or laws of the United States.

Even construing the complaint liberally, plaintiff has failed to state a discernable cause of action. It is difficult to determine from the complaint what plaintiff is complaining about, not to mention what each individual defendant allegedly did to deprive plaintiff of his constitutional rights. Therefore, the individual state defendants are entitled to have plaintiff's claims against them dismissed.

Third, plaintiff also failed to state a cause of action against the Escambia County Sheriff's Office or the Sheriff in his official capacity (official capacity actions are deemed to be against the entity that the individual represents). Municipalities and other governmental entities like the Escambia County Sheriff's Department cannot be held responsible for a constitutional deprivation under a theory of respondeat superior unless there is a direct causal link between the entity's policy or custom and the alleged deprivation. Plaintiff has not alleged any such policy or custom in this case.

Fourth, plaintiff improperly alleged a Bivens [n1] claim against the federal defendants in their individual capacities. A complaint based upon an alleged constitutional tort may be dismissed for failure to state a claim either because Congress has created explicit remedies, or a court-created remedy would interfere with the effective functioning of the government.

In this case not only would a Bivens action interfere with the effective functioning of the government, but Congress has created an explicit remedy for the apparent conduct that plaintiff alleges. Title 26, United States Code, Section 7433, allows a taxpayer to bring a civil action against the United States for damages arising from reckless or intentional violation of the IRS Code or Regulations by its officers or employees.

[n1] Bivens v. Six Unknown Named Agents of Fed. Bureau of Narcotics, 403 U.S. 388, 91 S. Ct. 1999, 29 L. Ed. 2d 619 (1971)

In other words, Hovind's claim consisted essentially of a sheaf of paper bearing a steaming heap of incomprehensible gibberish.

[Added link to Posse Comitatus info]

[ February 06, 2002: Message edited by: hezekiahjones ]

wdog · 02-06-2002, 11:11 AM

hehehehe... "hovind the behind"... I think he should get ken hamm to defend him, and then we would hear 'but were you there?' applied in a defense.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

02-04-2002, 09:12 PM	#41
Nialler Banned Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Paris Posts: 8,473	It might be logical to pay the fine on his behalf if the law allows it. I would: Annoy him no end, Keep the authorities happy, Annoy him no end, and, Scuttle his attempt to fleece his followers of even more money. Also, and not insignificantly, it would annoy him no end.

02-05-2002, 10:44 AM	#42
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	I normally just lurk here but I thought I might be able to help. I live in Escambia County and I am an old friend of the building inspector who has Hovind's case. I just called her and left a message to call me back at work. I was going to ask her about the details of the case but I thought I would ask if anyone has anything specific he or she would like to know? You can post here or send me a message.

02-05-2002, 01:57 PM	#46
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	I was unable to talk to her today but I remain undaunted. I shall resume my efforts in the morning. I don't intend to let you guys down.

02-06-2002, 08:21 AM	#47
Philosoft Veteran Member Join Date: Feb 2002 Location: Southeast of disorder Posts: 6,829	I have spoken with Ms. Pelotte, but I would ask that you good folks please be discreet when you discuss this topic anywhere else because she is concerned about the use of her name in conjuction with an ongoing investigation. That said, she wasn't able to tell me much that's not public record. Matters of relative importance: --She is not a building inspector as indicated on Hovind's site. She is a code-enforcement officer who's sole job in this case was to serve notice that the building had no permits. She has no jurisdiction to decide whether or not the building meets code so everything that Hovind says about a) inviting her to do an inspection and b) her having no jurisdiction to serve the citation is either irrelevant or flat wrong. --Hovind's assertions about non-incorporation are irrelevant. Any structure in Escambia County, save certain small storage buildings and farm edifices, are subject to permitting. Even the Amish and Anabaptists, despite his assertions to the contrary. Further, Hovind's juxtaposition of state and county regulations is disingenuous. The only regulations that are relevant are those of Escambia County. Disney's alleged lack of permitting is irrelevant. There are, I think, 2 articles that appeared in the local paper last month about this incident. I am currently trying to get copies of those articles. I will post any relevant information they may contain.

02-06-2002, 09:21 AM	#48
NialScorva Veteran Member Join Date: Jan 2001 Location: Median strip of DC beltway Posts: 1,888	Matthew 22:17-21 Tell us therefore, What thinkest thou? Is it lawful to give tribute unto Caesar, or not? But Jesus perceived their wickedness, and said, Why tempt ye me, ye hypocrites? Shew me the tribute money. And they brought unto him a penny. And he saith unto them, Whose is this image and superscription? They say unto him, Caesar's. Then saith he unto them, Render therefore unto Caesar the things which are Caesar's; and unto God the things that are God's.

02-06-2002, 11:11 AM	#50
wdog Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2001 Location: Ohio, USA Posts: 1,547	hehehehe... "hovind the behind"... I think he should get ken hamm to defend him, and then we would hear 'but were you there?' applied in a defense.

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.