A Hovind Baty Website Header 06162016

Kent Hovind and his Champion Brady Byrum continue to hide out from an open, honest discussion of what is clearly a false and misleading legal narrative regarding Kent Hovind 2006 criminal convictions.  This is evidenced, in small part, by the now proposed effort to get Hovind followers to sign a “Sworn Affidavit of Criminal Complaint” and file it with Government officials under the claim of being able to initiate an investigation, overturn Kent Hovind’s 2006 convictions, impeach Judge Margaret Casey Rodgers, and obtain up to $30,000,000.00 in damages.

My challenge remains outstanding and unanswered.

Following is the link to the “sworn affidavit” and excerpts regarding “structuring”.  I believe a proper consideration of the document and it’s implied factual and legal claims will demonstrate that it is frivolous and without merit as far as establishing any legal defect in the 2006 convictions of Kent Hovind.

Link: https://kenthovindinnocence.files.wordpress.com/2016/12/sworn-affidavit-of-criminal-complaint-template.pdf

Brady Byrum & Kent Hovind Sworn Affidavit of Criminal Contempt (excerpts)

County of _____________

State of ___________________

ss: Know all men by these presents:

1. I AFFIRM that I am _____________________________.

2. I AFFIRM that I have personal knowledge of all of the statements in this Affidavit and I do hereby certify and verify that I have no legal disability, and that all of the statements in this affidavit are true and correct to the best of my knowledge, ability and understanding of the facts, the law, the Statutes, the Regulations, the case law and the evidence, and that it is being sworn to and signed under the penalties of perjury of these United States of America.

18. I AFFIRM I have read quotes from at least four separate Federal Case laws U.S. v. Reinis, 794 F.2d 506; U.S. v. Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432; U.S. v. Anzalone, 766 F.2d 676 and U.S. v. Varbel, 780 F.2d. 758 that clearly show the COMPLETE ABSENCE OF CRIMINALITY regarding 18 USC 2 and 31 USC 5313, when the total of transactions conducted by each individual at any single bank, on any single day, did not add up to or go over $10,000.

19. I AFFIRM that I clearly read in the Indictment filed in Case Number 3:06CR83/MCR against both Kent and Jo Hovind, that they were charged with 18 USC 2 and 31 USC 5313, and that all 45 “Counts” of Structuring in the form of withdrawals from their AmSouth Bank account were UNDER $10,000, and that each and every one of those accused withdrawals clearly show in the Hovind Indictment to have been conducted on separate, individual days, and no two or more of them were on the same day.

20. I AFFIRM that these Federal case laws of U.S. v. Reinis, 794 F.2d 506; U.S. v. Espriella, 781 F.2d 1432; U.S. v. Anzalone, 766 F.2d 676 and U.S. v. Varbel 780 F.2d. 758 were decided BEFORE the Indictment and trial of the Case Number 3:06CR83/MCR against the Hovinds, thereby making them available for stare decisis reference and applicability.

21. I AFFIRM that I BELIEVE that these above cases could have and should have been applied to the element accusations against the Hovinds in Case Number 3:06CR83/MCR because they prove that Kent and Jo Hovind were not guilty of any Structuring crimes.

22. I AFFIRM that I BELIEVE that these above cited case laws of Reinis, Espriella, Anzalone and Varbel (supra) provide the FIRST OF AT LEAST FIVE SOLID LAYERS of absolute EXEMPTION from CRIMINALITY of the Hovinds’ conducting 45 withdrawals of LESS THAN $10,000 all on separate days from their bank account.

28. I AFFIRM I have read the modifying Banking Enforcement Statute of 31 USC 5313(d) and (e) which modifies 31 USC 5324, of the 45 charges in Counts Thirteen through Fifty Seven in Case Number 3:06CR83/MCR, and that clearly show and provide MANDATORY EXEMPTIONS and DISCRETIONARY EXEMPTIONS to criminality for the charge of Structuring if the customer was a Qualified Banking Customer, which Kent and Jo Hovind were, at the AmSouth Bank per the Prosecutor’s own entry of such signature card as evidence of that established account, as is recorded in the transcript of the case.

29. I AFFIRM that I BELIEVE that these Mandatory and Discretionary Exemptions from criminality in banking transactions 31 USC 5313(d)(1)(D) and (e)(1) applied to Kent and Jo Hovind in Case Number 3:06CR83/MCR and that because of such application, Kent and Jo were EXEMPT from criminality in the 45 Structuring charges filed against them, separate from and in addition to all of the other reasons of criminal exemption.

31. I AFFIRM that I have read the pertinent holdings of the case laws of U.S. v. Anzalone, 766 F.2d 676 and U.S. v Richter, 610 Fed Supp. 2d 480, (both decided prior to the Hovind Indictment date of July 11, 2006), that clearly show that the IRS utterly failed to publish their intended Form 4789 into the Federal Register per the mandatory law in 5 USC 551-559, the Administrative Procedures Act, and therefore, the result of said failure has caused the Form 4789 (now renamed 104) to be a bogus / bootleg form that is NOT authorized to be MANDATORILY forced upon banks to be completed and filed, and as the Court explained, banks file the form only as a courtesy.

32. I AFFIRM that as a result of the IRS Form 4789 (now renamed 104) never being officially published according to law, and thus NOT MANDATORY for banks to file, that this irrefutable fact alone completely STRIPPED the United States District Court, Northern District in Pensacola Florida of its ability to LAWFULLY prosecute the Hovinds for 45 Counts of Structuring in 3:06CR83/MCR, as there is NO POSSIBLE WAY to criminally cause a bank to fail to file a form that is NOT REQUIRED to be filed in the first place.

33. I AFFIRM that this invalidity of the Form 4789 does not JUST strip the one United States District Court in the Northern District of Florida from lawfully prosecuting the 45 Hovind Structuring charges in Case Number 3:06CR83/MCR, this also strips the lawfulness from EVERY OTHER Structuring Charge and conviction across the entire United States of America, filed against every other Defendant, making the alleged offense of Structuring an utter IMPOSSIBILITY when the Form 4789 has NOT EVER been truly mandatory to begin with.

34. I AFFIRM that these rulings that declare the irrefutable fact that the IRS failed to first publish the Form 4789 into the Federal Register according to the requirements of the Administrative Procedures Act, provide the greatest and most powerful EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINALITY for the 45 Counts of Structuring filed against the Hovinds in Case Number 3:06CR83/MCR.

37. I AFFIRM that I clearly read in the Banking Regulations 31 C.F.R. 103.22(d)(6)(viii) that provide that master list of INDUSTRIES that are EXCLUDED from being AUTOMATICALLY EXEMPT from bank’s Reporting Requirements and said list contains NO MINISTRIES of any sort therein.

38. I AFFIRM that I therefore BELIEVE that by NO MINISTRIES being on this EXCLUSION LIST, that this PROVES that Creation Science Evangelism and/or Dinosaur Adventure Land, as a Ministry that was being run and operated by the Ordained Minister Kent Hovind, was already AUTOMATICALLY EXEMPT from having AmSouth Bank report any banking transaction over $10,000, providing the FIFTH layer of EXEMPTION FROM CRIMINALITY for the Hovinds, in the 45 Structuring charges of 3:06CR83/MCR.

41. I AFFIRM that I thus BELIEVE that the Hovinds, in (1) making 45 individual Withdrawals ALL UNDER $10,000 on separate days, (2) from a domestic insured bank that was NOT required to file ANY Form 4789s because the IRS utterly failed to obey the Administrative Procedures Act in the first place, (3) from their own long-term 5313(d)(1)(D) Mandatory Exempt, or (e)(1) Discretionary Exempt, Qualified Bank Account in Pensacola, Florida, (4) for the Creation Science Evangelism Ministry that is NOT on the EXCLUDED LIST from being in the greater AUTOMATICALLY EXEMPT list, (5) operating a ministry that has always been Tax Exempt according to the U.S. and Florida Constitutions, the Federal Laws and the Internal Revenue Manuals, therefore committed NO CRIMES of Structuring as falsely alleged in 3:06CR83/MCR.

67. ALL OF THE CRIMES, ACTIONS AND OMISSIONS COMMITTED BY MICHELLE M. HELDMYER, GREGORY R. MILLER AND MARGARET CATHERINE RODGERS AGAINST KENT HOVIND AND JO HOVIND AS DOCUMENTED ABOVE IN THE PREVIOUS 66 PARAGRAPHS HAVE SHOCKED MY CONSCIENCE AND HAS CAUSED ME TO UTTERLY LOSE FAITH IN THE FEDERAL CRIMINAL COURT SYSTEM. FURTHER, AFFIANT SAYETH NAUGHT.

x_________________________________________ Affiant,

Complainant, typed or written name ______________________________

SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED TO BEFORE ME, on this the ______ day of _________________, 20_______________. by: x______________________________ Notary Public, State of ______________

(End excerpts.)


Related documents in the effort by Kent Hovind & Brady Byrum to promote the cause of Kent Hovind regarding his 2006 convictions may currently be found at:

https://kenthovindinnocence.wordpress.com/donate-now/first-batch/


Related video on “structuring” on Brady Byrum’s YouTube channel.  Other videos in the DVD series can also be found on that channel:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NCerruy2jWc&index=3&list=PL78fbqBlYRGodhQcxXs7yKB_mQFdCXx5g


One of the many related articles on this website:

http://kehvrlb.com/brady-byrum-kent-hovind-flat-out-wrong-on-form-4789


One of the tactics used by Brady and Kent is to present the matter as being so very complicated, but it’s really not; and that is one of the reasons neither of them will face me and deal with their false legal narrative in a simple, fundamental way; step by reasonable step.

For instance, Kent and I agree that fundamental to understanding his 2006 legal problems, his convictions, is understanding what “structuring” is as applicable to his case. It is not what Kent and Brady propose, as reflected in the proposition below:

Proposition #2

Structuring requires 2 or more transactions
of $10,000 or less,
on the same day,
that total more than $10,000.

– Kent Hovind: Affirm
– Robert Baty: Deny

When one realizes that Kent’s and Brady’s position on that is false, and it is false, their whole legal narrative falls apart.


 


Comments

Brady Byrum’s & Kent Hovind’s “Sworn Affidavit” – Structuring! — 1 Comment

  1. Not only is Jo Hovind repeatedly referenced in the above excerpts, she is repeatedly
    referenced throughout the document.

    Rumor has it that she may not be pleased to find out that Kent continues to drag
    her into his scams.

    We’ll have to keep our “ear to the ground” and see what Kent and Brady might do
    about that; if anything.

    ——————————————

Leave a Reply