The Brady Byrum-Kent Hovind Claim:


That Brady and Kent would frame their fundamental claim in such a way is false and/or misleading.

Considering they are proposing to sell their analysis built on such a false/misleading claim is tantamount to “fraud” in my opinion.

Shame on them!  They know or should know that they are wrong.

Maybe I can clarify a bit.

I propose to you that, under the law and regulations, financial institutions are/were, in fact, required to provide the information identified on Form 4789 (currently Form 104) regarding cash transactions of over $10,000.00.


In the “old days”, the form indicated that the financial institutions should also report cash transactions where individual transactions of $10,000.00 or less totaled more than $10,000.00 in a single day.

In those old days, “structuring” was not a stand-alone crime.

In those days there were some cases where individuals were charged with aiding and abetting a bank’s failure to report cash transactions when the bank failed to report multiple transactions of $10,000.00 or less that totaled more than $10,000.00.


The problem was that in those cases there never was a proper law or regulation that called for the bank to report such transactions, and the instructions on the Form 4789 did not have the force and effect of such a law or regulation; convictions were reversed.

That is NOT an issue in the Hovind case, and Brady and Kent should know that, and maybe they do know that.

Since the Reinis and related cases were decided, “structuring” was codified as a stand-alone crime.


“No person shall, for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements of section 5313(a)…or any regulation prescribed under any such section,…structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist in structuring, any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions.”

Kent Hovind was convicted of violating this newer statute which does not/did not rely in any way on Form 4789.

Courts have already decided that prosecutions under the new law, such as in the case of Kent Hovind, are distinguishable from the old cases that were able to rely on the “Form 4789 Argument”.


Kent Hovind has, on a number of occasions, admitted to facts sufficient to conclude that he was guilty as charged for “structuring”.  This is in addition to the evidence presented at his trial which also showed his knowledge of the reporting requirement and intent to prevent the bank from having to file any reports.

Kent was guilty as charged and the jury, upon consideration of the evidence at trial, rendered it’s guilty verdict which was upheld on appeal.

I invite Brady Byrum, Kent Hovind, or their approved surrogates to openly and honestly engage me in a further discussion of this and related matters.

In addition to this venue, I have set up a dedicated FaceBook page solely for the purpose of exploring the innocence claims made for Kent Hovind as is being presented in the recently announced promotions for the dvd series entitled “Kent Hovind Innocence DVD”.  That page can be found at:

To date, Brady Byrum and Kent Hovind have refused to discuss these important public issues with me.

Others are invited to take up that conversation according to their time, talent and interest.  If not with me, elsewhere in the public square.


The following image reflects a breaking report from Kent Hovind regarding his interest in the truth regarding these important public issues.






Brady Byrum & Kent Hovind – Flat Out Wrong on Form 4789! — No Comments

Leave a Reply