Watch for Updates

Originally Posted October 11, 2020
by Robert Baty

Link to featured YouTube video illustrated below:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piW9LPa3Sq8

Link to Brandon Neifert YouTube channel:

https://www.youtube.com/channel/UC8JDu0uLfxrQAo1p3TeoIlw

Brandon Neifert from his YouTube Channel:

Brandon Neifert FaceBook page link:

https://www.facebook.com/brandon.neifert.33

Brandon Neifert Amazon page link:

https://www.amazon.com/Books-B-K-Neifert/s?rh=n%3A283155%2Cp_27%3AB.+K.+Neifert&fbclid=IwAR0pdPQsjE9xdrD2iurrYge7uDTEQi9fUGWtBoLsGvkyRgl-JS_EqAlto18

Brandon Neifert blog link:

https://brandon.water.blog/annabelle-listens-to-paul-bunyan/

Between the dates of October 9, 2020 and October 11, 2020, Brandon and I (Robert Baty) had an exchange in the comments section of Paulogia’s video at the above referenced link.

That video, in which I am featured, currently has over 39,000 views and over 1,200 comments.

What follows below are the texts of the exchange between Brandon and me.

From Brandon Neifert

He (Kent Hovind) probably labeled his organization as a 501(c)(3), and the Government disallowed it because it was a Creationist program. I mean… the government needs sued over a lot of things. Kent’s probably a victim of the system, and I never got why he was put in prison. “Structuring”, is probably related to the Tax Exemption status of his organization, and everything else he’s charged with probably relates to that. It’s his actual belief, and it’s common among a bunch of Christians. It should get Tax Exempt status. His lawsuit is just. Now, the Government is probably going to follow the proverb, “Do not thwart a man in his cause.” As is the case. I just hope Ken Ham doesn’t face the same problem with the Noah’s Ark encounter.

From Robert Baty

That’s not even close to the facts of the Hovind story.

From Brandon Neifert

Hypocrites are more destructive than flat out enemies of God. There’s a verse in the Bible about that. It’s also what I think about Donald Trump. I think he’s dangerous for the faith, and I think Christians allying themselves with him is going to further discredit our faith.
I’m voting for Elizabeth Warren. I don’t like either, but it’s important that we understand that hypocrisy is dangerous. Christians are creating a mess right now, and we’ll only be the ones who are victimized by it. If we discredit ourselves in the world’s eyes, we’ll be more vulnerable to further persecution, and everyone will point at Trump and say “See, we told you guys you were stupid.” Frankly, it’s because they didn’t listen to their prophets.
It’s true that we’re on average less intelligent than atheists. But, that is where the metaphor about Sheep comes in. Christians—real ones—are good hearted and exceptionally kind to everyone they meet. They take care of the weak and the sick, and they help more people than any other demographic.
Frankly, I hear a lot of charity from atheists, but I rarely ever see it. Christians are very charitable. Very kind. And while I admit we’re not the brightest on earth, there’s sometimes a point where intelligence can hinder your understanding and knowledge. A good example is algebra. Most people use it without understanding why or how it works. The more intelligent someone is, the less likely they are to be able to do algebra competently without understanding the concepts. And those concepts are difficult—trust me. If you ever sat down and tried to think about algebra, and how it works, or why it works, you’d need a PhD just to get even close. Most people use algebra on faith that it works, without understanding why.
That’s kind of how God is. We know He works, that’s why we believe in Him. If you ask us to understand why—which is what you’re grasping at—we cannot. It’s out of our own comprehension, but the fact that it does work, and we see evidence of it, suggests that we’re probably right, and it’s less likely that we’ll believe someone who tries to tell us it doesn’t.

From Robert Baty

I wasn’t “grasping”.
Kent’s/Paul’s $500,000,000.00+ lawsuit is neither “just” nor legally sustainable.
Kent was/is guilty as was charged.
Kent was properly investigated,
properly charged,
properly tried,
properly convicted,
properly sentenced.
Kent displays what has become known as Hovind Hypocrisy with his pledge to spend the rest of his life whining about it and trying to harrass the Government and those involved in his case.

From Brandon Neifert

If you would have read what I said, you’d see I was agreeing with you. I never said “Grasping” either. At least not in the context you thought.

Try reading a little bit.
You sounded ignorant.

From Robert Baty

I would probably agree with you as to some of the political issues, but I did not want to get into that.
I may have misunderstood some of what you wrote, but I think your framing of the various issues you addressed provided adequate stimulus for such misunderstanding.
Your opening post of this subthread is what really sounded “ignorant”.
You never wrote “grasping”, or you did?
“If you ask us to understand why—which is what you’re grasping at-…
– Brandon Neifert
Yeah, maybe I didn’t understand the context, and you didn’t help me out there.
That’s OK.

From Brandon Neifert

The context was that hypocrites do bad things. Worse things than people who plainly reject the Gospel. There’s nothing worse than a professing Christian who doesn’t act the way Christ commanded. But that’s in both the New and Old Testament.
It could be that Kent did something bad. I don’t know. Most of those Creationist Hardliners I’m skeptical about. But, I’m confident that it doesn’t matter. I wasn’t in the jury, and neither were you. So, like all crime—Casey Anthony and Jerry Sandusky included—it’s best to just stay out of it.
We don’t actually know the circumstances involved in it, and it’s easy to speculate. But, Jesus said “Judge not lest you be judged.”

From Robert Baty

Bwhahahahahaha!
Are you making judgments, Brandon, while proposing we not judge?
So, I don’t think I got you wrong, and was correct in supposing your are “ignorant” regarding the issues under consideration here (i.e., Kent Hovind and his legal problems).
Kent did do something “bad”! Lots of somethings if you consider his broader record.
Besides his criminal career, Kent:
1. Sent his first wife, Jo Hovind, to prison.
2. Manipulated her into divorcing him so he could marry Mary Tocco.
3. Ran Mary off after a few months, without benefit of divorce, so he could check out a replacement.
4. Took up with Cindi Lincoln with whom he continues to live as if married.
5. Engaged in the politics of personal destruction as to any involved in his criminal prosecution.
6. And many other examples might be given.
Kent loves it when people like you cover for him.
Thanks for the demonstration.

From Brandon Neifert

I don’t really know how to respond to what you just said. One thing that helps me, is I read every word someone posts to me. Even if I really disagree with it, I try to at least understand what they said. This conversation has derailed.

From Robert Baty

This is another case where I distinctly remember replying, but I cannot now see my reply. So, I’ll try again.
I don’t think the conversation has derailed in the way you suggest, Brandon.
You’ve put on a good demonstration of your “ignorance” of the topic at hand; Kent Hovind and his criminal/legal problems.
In demonstration thereof I will just note here some of what you said in your opening comments of this sub-thread:
(Begin quotes.)
He (Kent Hovind) probably labeled his organization as a 501(c)(3), and the Government disallowed it because it was a Creationist program.
Kent’s probably a victim of the system, and I never got why he was put in prison.
“Structuring” is probably related to the Tax Exemption status of his organization, and everything else he’s charged with probably relates to that.
His lawsuit is just.
(End quotes.)
If you want to preach, Brandon, you can take full credit for derailing the conversation we might have had.
If there is something specific to the curioius case of Kent Hovind, criminally/legally, that you might wish to discuss, we might produce something worthy of our time.

From Brandon Neifert

At what part did you read that I might have conceded, and said he could be a hypocrite? Maybe you changed my opinion.

You really are ignorant.
You don’t read what I said. You’re a peach… You argue, but if you had listened, we’d be having a different conversation.
You really are ignorant.
Where’s your quotation of that?
I hate it when people quote things, and then respond. It doesn’t prove that you understand it. only that you can use copy and paste.

From Brandon Neifert

This is another case of you not reading a word of what I said, and making presuppositions. You’re doubling down on my original statement, which if you’d have any reading comprehension, you’d realize I suggested that maybe Kent was a hypocrite.
I’m waiting to see what you quote, or if you can even understand this paragraph.
You’re just ignorant.
That’s all there is to it.
You’re just argumentative.
You don’t want to listen, otherwise you’d have seen I was changing my opinion.
But, your lack of understanding these basic sentences, means I highly doubt your competent enough to know whether Kent Hovind is guilty.
You read into things what you want to be there. You could have just read what I said, and agreed that I considered Kent was merely a hypocrite. But, instead, we’re having a discussion on whether I think Kent is a saint.
Which I’m not God.
Nor was I juror on the trial.
I can’t say either, and neither should you.
All I know is that he thinks he has a lawsuit, and you know what?
Given your level of incompetence at understanding the basic things I said, I can’t trust a single one of your accusations because they could all just be interpolations.
Therefore, Kent might be innocent, and he might be a victim of the system.
That much I’m sure you’ll read when you’re skimming this response. And I’m sure you won’t understand it, just like everything else I wrote.

From Robert Baty

I guess we differ on my understanding as to the level of your “ignorance” regarding the issues under consideration: Kent Hovind’s legal/criminal issues.
If you think I am not reading your posts it may be a reflection as to your communication skills.
In your recent post you wrote, in part:
– “I might have conceded, and
– said he (Kent Hovind) could be a hypocrite?”
Try quoting from your own previous posts as to what is supposed to back that up?
Also your waffling about “could” is telling, in my opinion. We all could be hypocrites.
You also wrote, in part:
– “We’re having a discussion on whether I think Kent is a saint.”
That’s not the discussion I am having.
You also write, in part:
– “I can’t trust a single one of your accusations
– because they could all just be interpolations.
– Therefore, Kent might be innocent.”
Well, that kind of logic on your part helps further explain your problems on these simple matters.
You exhibit qualities, characteristics commonly found in sympathizers/supporters of Kent Hovind; apathy and ignorance.
That is, you don’t seem to know and don’t seem to care.
You just have other things that interest you and that you’d rather talk about.
Maybe it is past time, Brandon, that you take some of your own advice and “just stay out of” this discussion about Kent Hovind and his criminal history and related matters, since you are quite convincing that you don’t know enough to discuss the details.

From Brandon Neifert

You know, I didn’t want to be cynical, and say you’d quote something of mine and misrepresent it. But, I thought it was a possibility, and lo, so and behold you do it.
Proving exactly what I thought.
You have a poor reading comprehension.
But, since you want a quotation,
– “Hypocrites are more destructive than flat out enemies of God.”
You can read it in the second comment, if you’d like. The enthymeme being that Kent might be a hypocrite. But, I don’t know, so rather than speculate on whether someone is a bad person, that’s not my cup of tea. I don’t like gossip. I never have.
And Kent obviously believes he’s innocent, otherwise he wouldn’t be suing.
So, with my understanding of human behavior, people don’t double down and waste a lot of money trying to win a lawsuit, unless they believe there’s validity to it.
It does seem like Kent believes he’s innocent, which is enough for me to believe that maybe there’s more to this than meets the eye.
Or, it could be he’s a hypocrite who believes his own lies.
That’s not my job to discern, and it’s not yours, either.
Frankly, you’re ignorant. I understand what I say might be difficult, but it doesn’t reflect my communication skills.
My ideas are difficult, therefore communicating them is difficult.
I do believe had you read what I said—instead of skim it, and make blanket assumptions based on those skim reads, which I was akin to do for a long time, until I found actually understanding what other people say is more effective at winning arguments—we’d be talking about something different.
Let me translate that into language you’ll understand.
You should read what I say, and try to understand it before commenting. And yes, this is about whether I believe Kent is saint or not.
Obviously, you don’t understand figures of speech either, because that was sarcasm.
You want to group me in with people who defend Kent. I’m not one of them.
I’m simply someone who doesn’t like to throw garbage at people, and destroy their reputations with little knowledge of the subject.
And given my knowledge of psychology, people don’t try to sue the government when they believe they’re bad people.
That is about as senseless as it can get.
You really have a disappointing level of competence when reading, and with understanding nuance in positions of your interlocutors.
Let me translate that into language you’d understand.
My idea is very multifaceted, and you’re not going to understand it unless you make an honest effort to read every word I wrote, and only speak when you’ve come to the point I’m trying to make.
The point I’m trying to make is that I don’t like accusing people I don’t know of things, and I usually assume their innocence when they display behavior such as suing the government over wrongful imprisonment.

From Brandon Neifert

Obviously, you have no idea what I’m saying, though. And it’s not my ability to communicate that’s the problem. It’s your third grade reading level.

From Robert Baty

You are getting to the point of hilarity, Brandon.
I read where you wrote “Hypocrites are more destructive than flat out enemies of God”.
Cute how you suggest that, based on that, you propose “Kent might be a hypocrite”.
And you further demonstrate that knowing more about Kent’s criminal and related history is not something you are particularly interested in.
I think I know what you are saying, and the real question is whether you know what you are saying and the implications/inferences related thereto.
This that you wrote is brilliant (not):
– “Kent obviously believes he’s innocent,
– otherwise he wouldn’t be suing.”
That is not a true statement.
I happen to believe that Kent knows he was/is guilty.
Kent is suing for reasons quite unrelated to whether or not he knows he is guilty or innocent. You have a lot to learn about human behavior before you are going to be able to impress people with your “knoweldge of human behavior”.
Kent is not wasting time to win a lawsuit.
Take a break, Brandon, and spend some time studying “the real Kent Hovind”.
There is, obviously, a lot more to this mess than meets your eye.
It is my job to discern, and yours, but you have been quite neglectful; seems to me.
You are welcome to believe Kent is a saint. Accordidng to Kent, and maybe you as well, Brandon, Kent was guaranteed a home in heaven many years ago and it doesn’t really matter what kind of scoundrel he has become as he has grown.
Doesn’t matter he’s had a long criminal career.
Doesn’t matter he’s been lying about that for years.
Doesn’t matter he sent Jo to prison.
Doesn’t matter his negligence has resulted in his son Andrew’s lifelong disabilities.
Doesn’t matter he got Jo to divorce him.
Doesn’t matter he ran off Mary Tocco.
Doesn’t matter he’s shacked up with Cindi Lincoln.
Doesn’t matter that Kent has enjoyed having young women on his conpound massage his mostly naked body.
Brandon, you can accept my allegations as if true and join with Kent in claiming all that, and more, just doesn’t matter; even if true.
Will you do it?

From Robert Baty

Here’s a proposal for you, Brandon, if you want to get serious and deal with what Kent has claimed is fundamental to understanding his legal problems.
Proposition:
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
– Brandon Neifert: (To Affirm or Deny)
When you are prepared to either affirm or deny Kent’s years’ long proposition about structuring, then maybe we can discuss the extent to which we may agree or disagree on some matter relevant to understanding Kent Hovind and his history.

From Brandon Neifert

Well, I never even knew structuring was illegal, and possibly Kent didn’t either. Thanks for the heads up, though. I’ll be sure to always only do one large purchase a day.
Give me a break.

From Brandon Neifert

I’ll believe one thing. You can’t read.

From Brandon Neifert

Looks like he was sentenced for mail fraud.
Which, I was just reading, is a pretty sketchy charge. I’m not an expert on Kent Hovind.
But, if I were you, I’d cease from making accusations about him that are likely not true.

From Robert Baty

Well if you want to frame the issue around that, I am confident that most of our audience would conclude you are the one that can’t read, or won’t.
Your ignorance as to the matter relevant to the topic of the video above is further demonstrated, and I thank you for that. It’s a valuable addition to the record.
It doesn’t matter whether or not Kent knew structuring was illegal.
You do need a “break”. I suggest you take it and spend some time familiarizing yourself with the issues featured in the video above.
Maybe then we can talk.
Obviously, you presently are not up to an informed, reasonable and reasoned discussion of such things.
Kent was not sentenced for mail fraud.
That, I take, as another indication that you are the one that can’t read, or can’t understand what you are reading.
Thanks again, but you’ve already put on a sufficient demonstration.
I do not make accusations, such as I have in this exchange, that are likely not true about Kent Hovind. If you want to challenge me on any of them, let me know what you come up with and maybe we can talk.
However, I think we need to first find out where you stand on the simple matter of structuring as framed by Kent Hovind himself:
Proposition:
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
– Brandon Neifert: (To Affirm or Deny)
It doesn’t get much simpler than that when it comes to Kent Hovind, and if you can’t either affirm or deny Kent’s years’ long claim, and defend your position, I figure you aren’t one to be discussing Kent’s problems.
So, take that “break” and come back, later, not sooner, when you are prepared for a serious, reasoned and reasonable exchange about some matter of mutual interest.

From Brandon Neifert

If you could read, you’d realize I was beginning to agree with you, until you started acting like a pedant and started derailing the conversation.
Other than that, there’s really no reason to argue with you about Kent.
I really could go further, but you’d likely not understand. Who knows. Maybe in your world Kent is a sexed up psychopath who preys on young women.
Or, maybe you’re just projecting.

From Robert Baty

You, like Kent and his people, have resorted to trying to characterize my sexual interests.
I get it.
If there is no reason for you to discuss the details of Kent’s problems with me, you should seriously take that “break” from this exchange.
I already told you your demonstrations have been sufficient to demonstrate your problems as to your ability to discuss Kent’s issues seriously, reasonably.
Kent’s proposition remains outstanding and you have let another opportunity pass to simply decide whether your affirm or deny.
Proposition:
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
– Brandon Neifert: (To Affirm or Deny)
Kent has answered: Affirm.
I have answered: Deny.
Brandon Neifert has not, cannot, will not answer.
I get it.

From Brandon Neifert

Well, discussing this with someone else, it turns I was spot on the money. So, frankly, he’s a little more reliable than you are.
I’m going to just walk away, and stop this conversation because you’re an angry troll with a political agenda.
I’m just a person who simply took one look at this, and realized Kent was put in jail because he thought he had tax exempt status.

From Robert Baty

And you are flat out wrong about that in writing:
– “I’m just a person who … realized Kent was put in
–  jail because he thought he had tax exempt status.”
As I indicated before, you seem to illustrate the typical characteristics of a Hovind sympathizer; you don’t know and you don’t care.
I get it.
I am not angry.
I am not a troll.
Nice try, Brandon.
Walk away like many before you who dare not admit that Kent has been flat out lying about what “structuring” is as it relates to his problems.
The fundamental issue, according to Kent, remains for your consideration if, after walking away, you come back and want to discuss this fundamental matter:
Proposition:
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
– Brandon Neifert: (To Affirm or Deny)
Kent has answered: Affirm.
I have answered: Deny.
Will Brandon Neifert ever “give an answer”???????????????????
Maybe. Maybe not.

From Robert Baty

“Well, discussing this with someone else,
it turns I was spot on the money.
So, frankly, he’s a little more reliable than you are.”
— Brandon Neifert
Bwahahahahahahaha!
It’s hard to compete against secret sources.
It was not until Kent publicly talked about me and sourced his claims to such secret sources that I countered with my own reference in support of the claim that Kent was negligent, possibly criminally so, in the incident that almost resulted in the death of his son Andrew, involved a family intervention, and ended with Andrew having life-long disabilities.
Kent’s claims about me, which he put off on a secret source, were not reliable nor the claims true.
Maybe Brandon has a similar secret source.
However, no one has challenged my secret source material regarding the reason why Andrew Hovind, Kent’s son, has certain disabilities.
I think I have better secret sources than Kent Hovind and Brandon Neifert.

From Robert Baty

“He’s a little more reliable than you are.”
– Brandon Neifert
We might test that ipse dixit, but I don’t think Brandon and his secret source are up to it.

From Robert Baty – In a new subthread under the video

For those who missed my exchange with Brandon Neifert in the comments section here, and might have an interest, I have archived it on my website at:

http://kehvrlb.com/brandon-neifert-v-robert-baty-on-kent-hovind

Feedback is appreciated.

From Brandon Neifert – In a separate subthread under the video

I just hope Ken Ham doesn’t face this problem with his Noah’s Ark encounter.

.

Update October 11, 2020  8:55 PM MT

One reason for archiving the above is because I have learned not to trust others in preserving the record.  I’m not sure, but it seems like Brandon may have deleted the entire exchange from the Paulogia comments section.  I got notification of 2 more postings from Brandon, after he said he was walking away, but I cannot find the sub-thread in the comments section now.  So, I suspect Brandon may have deleted the record there.  Following is a screenshot of my notifications which reflect Brandon really doesn’t know what he is talking about.

From Robert Baty in my separate subthread under the video

Some are aware that I like to archive my substantive efforts, such as I noted above, because I have learned not to trust others, in certain cases, to preserve the record.
So, it now seems Brandon didn’t walk away as he claimed he was going to.
Rather it seemed he popped off again, proving he is an unworthy adversary, and then deleted the record of our exchange here.
At least I cannot now find that record.
YouTube did send 2 notifications indicating that Brandon popped off again before, apparently, deleting the record.
I have added those notifications which seem to include the substance of his 2 messages to my record of our exchange at:
http://kehvrlb.com/brandon-neifert-v-robert-baty-on-kent-hovind
If you find the exchange still present here, let me know and I will look further for it.
I add these responses to Brandon’s cheap shots:
Brandon claimed he was not a federal jury and so could not decide one’s guilt.
And this guy claims I am the ignorant one!
I am not a federal jury either, but I can determine whether or not Kent is guilty.
Brandon again demonstrates, implicitly, that he doesn’t know and doesn’t care.
I get it.
The guy just can’t shut up about it and wants to keep proving he doesn’t know what he’s talking about. Brandon then suggests Kent paid his dues and I should shut up about it.
Kent has not paid his dues.
Kent has pledged the rest of his life to promoting his false legal narrative.
I have job security.
Yes, it’s a tough job, but someone has to do it.

Update October 11, 2020  11:15 PM MT

So, Brandon ran off to his YouTube channel and posted an 11 minute video to talk at me.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfygLL0ZTYk

Update October 12, 2020

Posted the following comments to the comments section of Brandon’s video noted above.

Clickable link in comments:

https://twitter.com/BatyvHovind/status/1315522298829369346/photo/1

Some discussion has developed at Brandon’s place:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfygLL0ZTYk

From Brandon Neifert

You’re the tax expert. I’m not defending Kent, just giving you advice.
You shouldn’t let scorn rule you, or else you’re going to end up harming yourself.

From Robert Baty

It doesn’t take a tax expert to form an opinion on what Kent has been harping about for years. His people have followed him in his harping for years as well.
It’s an excellent starting point for people who dare to consider the merits of Kent’s innocence claims; claims he has pledged to promote for the rest of his life while engaging in the politics of personal destruction as to those involved in his prosecution in 2006 and his critics, like me.
So, here it is again for ready reference:
Proposition:
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
– Brandon Neifert: (To Affirm or Deny)
Kent has answered.
I, Robert Baty, have answered.
Waiting for you, Brandon, or others, to answer.

From Bandon Neifert

Here is my answer.
I am not a jury.
I am not a judge.
I am also not a god.

From Robert Baty

None of those are options as to the issue at hand:
Proposition:
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
– Brandon Neifert: (To Affirm or Deny)
Kent has answered.
I, Robert Baty, have answered.
For those interested in discussing issues relevant to the Kent Hovind story, the above is an excellent starting point.
I am not a jury.
I am not a god.
I am a judge.
Thanks again for your demonstrations, Brandon.
We just don’t seem to share an interest in what might be discussed.

From Robert Baty

Let me try to explain to you, Brandon, and others, just how simple this is.
1. If you think you have a good reason to think the proposition is true, then you simply affirm.
2. If you don’t, the default position is for you to deny.
You can either affirm or deny.
We don’t have to debate it, though we might discuss it if there is a mutual interest in doing so. However, it’s most appropriate to test your mettle and get you to catch up with Kent and me who have already “given an answer”.
Proposition:
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
– Brandon Neifert: (To Affirm or Deny)

From Brandon Neifert

I choose the third option. That is to let sleeping dogs lie.
I don’t know Kent. I don’t know you.
All I do know is that if it’s your 15 minutes of fame, it will destroy you. You’re not doing yourself any benefit by having this discussion with me, whether Kent is or isn’t guilty.
I could be concerned with Jody Ares or Jerry Sandusky. Or any of the myriads of other criminals. Or even Judge Kavanagh who was shown innocent.
It’s not my place to judge.
Just my place to tell you that whether I confirm or deny—I don’t have enough evidence, nor jurisprudence to do either.
I can either obsess about Kent’s guilt or innocence, or I can read Brother’s Kamarazov, and think about bigger issues.
I’d prefer to think about more important things.
So, there’s your answer.
It’s not edifying to me to gossip about this. I’m just saying this because I care about you.
You shouldn’t be doing this.
It’s not good.

From Robert Baty

Thanks for that further demonstration, Brandon, that it is you with the reading comprehension problem.
As I explained in my earlier comments, you do, in fact, have enough information/evidence to either affirm or deny.
There is no third option.
As I also previously explained, Kent has pledged the rest of his life to promoting his false legal narrative.
So, you can deal with that continuing story, or not.
I will continue to deal with it. It’s a good thing for me to do.
Proposition:
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
– Brandon Neifert: (To Affirm or Deny)
1. If you think you have a good reason to think the proposition is true, then you simply affirm.
2. If you don’t, the default position is for you to deny.
You CAN either affirm or deny.

From Brandon Neifert

There is a third option for me.
I don’t know.
I’m not a Tax Official like you are.

From Robert Baty

No, there is no 3rd option specially for you, Brandon.
If you could read with understanding, you would also recognize it is not a tax question.
I also am NOT a tax official.
You CAN answer with an affirmation or denial.
1. If you think you have a good reason to think the proposition is true, then you simply affirm.
2. If you don’t, the default position is for you to deny.
Proposition:
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
– Brandon Neifert: Deny
Since you said you don’t know, that can be reasonably interpreted to mean you have no good reason to “affirm”.
Therefore, your default position is to agree with me and “deny”.
I have entered that position for you above and will let the world know we have gotten this far in that most simple of matters.
Our reasoning may be different, but our “denials” are equivalent.

.

.

In one of Brandon’s videos he talks about being “bad” when he was younger and invited folks to look up his sex offender registration.  So, I did, and came up with this information:

Brandon Neifert Registration Information

.

Back to Brandon’s video comments:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfygLL0ZTYk

From Brandon Neifert

I think you spent way too much time on this.
And I understand you’re mildly famous, and that you are famous for being a tax authority who criticized Kent Hovind.
Unless you’re a different Robert Baty.
I’ve caught you lying a few times in this discussion.

From Robert Baty

Well, Brandon, maybe we should start with the lying charge.
I am always open to improving my reporting.
As Kent might propose, give me your best 3 lies you claim I told.
Let’s see what you got.
Otherwise, Kent is currently broadcasting live from near Lenox, AL at:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TvEOFRKJPbI

.

Brandon also made reference to the incident reported below:

(Text)
Man sentenced to probation for trying for run over teens in New Cumberland
Updated Mar 23, 2019; Posted Jul 14, 2009
A Lewisberry man who was accused of trying to run down two teenagers he claimed had harassed him was sentenced today to 46 months’ probation. Brandon K. Neifert, 19, also was ordered by Cumberland County Judge J. Wesley Oler Jr. to remain under mental health treatment and was barred from driving.
Police said Neifert tried to run down the teens with his car on Bridge Street in New Cumberland in December. He didn’t hit the boys, but struck and damaged the Trinity United Methodist Church.
Oler ordered Neifert to pay $1,124 for repairs to the church.

The following account indicates the boys were hit:

.

Update October 13, 2020

Picking up the action via the comments section of Brandon’s video at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfygLL0ZTYk

From Brandon Neifert 

Well, the first (alleged lie of Robert Baty) being you’re not a Tax official.
Aren’t you a supposed Veteran of the IRS?

From Brandon Neifert

The second is that I’m a supporter of Hovind’s.
I really am not.

From Brandon Neifert

And the third is you claimed I was a “Judge”.
There’s three lies.
I can find others.

From Brandon Neifert

Oh, and there’s a fourth, but I’d rather not go down that rabbit hole of why you presume it to be true.
You’ll just claim its from that source that you’re always going on about, but, I’d watch saying things like that without substantial evidence because it can be prosecuted as libel.
Especially since you know Kent personally.
I don’t.

From Robert Baty

You accuse me of lying and libel, but you don’t want to talk about the details.
Bwahahahahahahaha!
You are hardly the first, and likely won’t be the last to make such lame accusations against me.
I’ll offer the following in response.
1. I am not a “tax official”. I haven’t been involved in the tax business for over 15 years.
2. What you have written has been supportive of Kent Hovind.
3. What you have written has been in judgment of me.
4. I don’t know Kent personally.
Really, Brandon, don’t be shy.
I really want to know what libelous claim you think I made and why you claim it is libelous.
Do you know what libel is?
Kent’s people have been advising him to sue me for years, for libel.
I know why he doesn’t.
Kent knows why he doesn’t.

From Brandon Neifert

1. Then you are a tax official. You were involved in the Tax Business. Your playing with semantics shows a lot about you.
2. What I wrote is not in support of Kent Hovind. What I wrote was simply an opinion on why he landed in jail, and I found out I was right. It was because he evaded paying his Payroll Tax by trying to claim 501c3 status. As in, he was trying to get deductions for tax roll by claiming his employees were missionaries. Which, I might say, is against the tax code, so it is illegal. That’s what I said.
3. I never judged you, I just caught you using word salad. Frankly, I never accused you of committing a crime I hadn’t seen you do personally.
4. You know exactly what you said. And Kent has bigger issues at hand than suing you. But, given his record, I’d be leery about spreading rumors, otherwise he might just sue you.
That’s why I made this video was to lovingly tell you what I thought, which is that we shouldn’t be trying to destroy another man’s reputation.
Let him do it himself.

From Robert Baty

I think you win the prize for the use of “word salad” and playing semantic games, Brandon.
Let me know if you come up with something specific that you can be open and honest in discussing, and maybe we can deal with it more effectively if we have a mutual interest in further discussing such things.

From Brandon Neifert

And the simplest answer to this is that you shouldn’t try to avoid paying your taxes. That’s not Christlike. Even Christ payed his taxes.
If that doesn’t answer your objection to whatever you think I’m saying, then you’re not really reading what I have to say.

From Brandon Neifert

And there’s a fifth lie you told, is that you don’t know Kent. There’s literally interviews of you and him speaking.
You lie.
That’s all I can discern from this conversation.
And you don’t like to read.

From Robert Baty

It’s not a lie; certainly not a “fifth lie”.
I didn’t note it earlier, but if you were to ever come out, come clean, and deal openly and honestly with the issues, you would not be keeping secrets but would rather provide references for consideration.
For instance, I have no idea what “interview” there is of Kent and me speaking (i.e., being together and talking). Care to share that with me?
Maybe I forgot about whatever it is you are talking about.
It’s kinda cute, though, and so typical of the lame claims Kent and his people send my way.

From Brandon Neifert

Alright, so, as an olive branch, I’ll say I got that one wrong.
The interview was just a commentary.
Now, will you admit to being wrong in judging Kent?
It’s only going to end badly for you. I’m here to tell you that. Not on behalf of Kent. I’m just good at predicting how things will go. Kent doesn’t know me, and I’m likely to delete this video before he ever watches it.
Because I’m leery of him, as well as you.

From Robert Baty

I happened to run across this on-line definition, Brandon. It might help you to further understand your blunder about that “knowing” issue.
“If you meet or know someone personally,
you meet or know them in real life,
rather than knowing about them or knowing their work.”
I am not wrong in judging Kent.
You are wrong to judge that I am wrong in judging Kent.
Did you already delete our exchange in the comments section of Paulogia’s video?
I can’t find it, but I do have it archived on my website, as I do this exchange. Your stated preference for tampering with the evidence is typical.
That’s one reason why I go to the trouble to preserve the record myself, at times, like this.

.

Brandon Neifert has removed his video addressed to me which was at the following link:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yfygLL0ZTYk

Update October 19, 2020

I had a discussion with Brandon via the comments section of the Paulogia video featuring me discussing Kent Hovind’s $500,000,000.00+ case at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=piW9LPa3Sq8

Brandon did not take kindly to losing that discussion and so went running to his echo chamber to misrepresent me and the whole of the matter.  His video is at:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uX9Tr8rpdGU

Above comments are in the first 2 minutes of video.

The discussion was quite lengthy but is buried in the other 1,900 or so comments under the Paulogia video.  I did not archive the discussion.  I may need to post at least some of it; for the record of how it really went.

I think this was my first post challenging Brandon’s Presuppositionalism

From Robert Baty

If there is knowledge,
then there must be a God.
There is knowledge.
Therefore, there is a God.
If there is knowledge, then God exists.
– Brandon Neifert Affirms
If God did not exist, then you could not know anything.
– Brandon Neifert Affirms
Brandon is presenting like a Presuppositionalist with such claims (that’s just one example of what he posted above).
They call it Presuppositionalism because those premises are presupposed. They believe them.
They can’t demonstrate them to be so.
Grant their presuppositions and they win.
Deny them and they lose.
I deny them.
They lost.
There is no “proof that God exists” in such Presuppositional word games.
My latest venture with such things is archived at:
http://kehvrlb.com/arne-verster-v-robert-baty-presuppositionalism

From Brandon Neifert

How do you know this isn’t a computer simulation? It’s surely being posited right now.
They’re not presuppositions.
Unless you call the very basics of science a presupposition, because of quantum mechanics.
If there’s knowledge, then there’s a God.
Because Knowledge can only be supposed at a stopping point. Without it, there can be no knowledge.
And if science is doubting the very fabric of reality, you’re kind of grasping at straws there calling what I say a presupposition.
But, we can be sure that there is knowledge because God exists. It’s the argument the Masons employed when building this country.
That’s what faith is. A stopping point, and a trust that the fabric of reality is as it appears.
If you remove God from the equation, just about anything is possible from deductive traps of infinite regresses.
It’s the foundation of reason, that there must be an a posteriori stopping point. That stopping point is the faith in what we perceive here in reality.
Meaning, knowledge does quantify God’s existence.
Because without God’s existence, there cannot truly be knowledge. Which is why the certainty of Euclidian Geometry is one of the best proofs of God’s existence.
Even science is proof of God’s existence.
Because it’s certain.
There’s also moral certainties, that we’re less adept at discovering, but when you investigate them, they all corroborate what the Bible says.
Making it not only predictive of human behavior, but also prescriptive to help them cooperate and subsist. Which is why faith is necessary.
Of course, you can’t understand those sentences. So you’ll just copy and paste them, and give pseudo-responses.
I’m sure this will even be copy and pasted, and you’ll say something like, “I’m not giving a pseudo-response because there is nothing reliable proving God’s existence.”
Yada yada yada.
Basic human values and the conscience are good enough for me to believe.
From Robert Baty
I think you have proved my point, Brandon.
These are your presuppositional claims:
If there is knowledge, then God exists.
Brandon Neifert Affirms
If God did not exist, then you could not know anything.
Brandon Neifert Affirms
No grasping.
Those are typical Pressuppositional claims.
For all you know, Brandon, the folks could know stuff in a world without God (which some think is this world).
Nope, presupposing everything/anything is evidence of God provides NO “proof that God exists”.
I don’t think anyone would reasonably deny the proposition that in a world with God that the folks could know stuff.
Your burden, your mission, Brandon, if you care to accept it, is to try to do what no Presuppositionalist has yet done.
That is to show that in a world without God (which some think is this world), the folks could not know anything.
You believe it (as you seem to admit in your closing comment above).
You presuppose it.
I get it.
If folks grant your presupposition, then you win.
If they don’t, and I don’t, you lose.
I don’t.
You lose.
Personally, I prefer this form of your argument:
If God did not exist, then you could not have peanut brittle.
You can have peanut brittle.
Therefore, God exists.
That being the case, isn’t it amazing there are still atheists around to deny that God exists, don’t believe that God exists.

From Brandon Neifert

There’s one point you missed. Respond when you’ve found it. It’s a doozy, but I bet you just skimmed past it like everything else.
Your frustrating to argue with because you presume to understand what I’m saying, with no real understanding of my argument.
Here’s my argument.
“If there is certainty, there must be a God.”
“There is certainty.”
“Therefore, there is a God.”
So yes, if there is Penut Brittle, there is a God. Because you could just be hallucinating it on some computer program that doesn’t actually exist in its own right, and you could possibly even be a computer program that I’m talking to, that is programmed to copy and paste text, and provide witty remarks.
How do I know that you exist? How do you know that the reality you’re given exists? How do you know anything for certain? Because you don’t.
You operate on a presupposition that the corporeal reality you see is something you can take for granted. We both agree with that. However, your explanation leaves the possibility of corporeal reality not being real. Whereas mine doesn’t.
I’m much more solidly grounded.

From Brandon Neifert

Type into the YouTube Browser,
“You are a simulation, and physics can prove it.”
<=== that’s asinine. but it’s also science.
Now, what will I believe? That the reality I see is simply a simulation? Or will I believe in corporeal existence, and take it for granted that there is certainty? Because even with science, there can be no certainty, as is proven by the Ted-Talk you’ll watch, if you’re really listening.
I can believe it’s utter crap–because it is—but the fact that it’s utter crap, it’s still called modern science.
And here we have an existential and philosophical question that you’ve never asked, but I ask myself every day. That’s why I believe in God’s existence. Because i observer certainty, and I observe moral patterns as well which are just as certain. And God describes them better than science.

From Brandon Neifert

And the idea he’s entertaining is beginning to gain more steam. Elon Musk believes it, so do a lot of scientists. They’re starting to doubt corporeal existence because of a certain phenomena they’ve discovered. It’s old. But, of course, this is where we’re going to have a problem. Isn’t it? Certainty is the essence of scientific discovery. Without it, there can be no hope of ever attaining truth.
Without God, or a belief in Him, there can be no certainty because even reality can be doubted without Him.
I hope you find God soon, because I don’t know how much time any of us have left.

From Robert Baty

I didn’t miss any substantive points, Brandon. I understand your Presuppositional argument quite well. That’s why Presuppositionalists don’t like me much.
That’s quite a Sye Ten Bruggencate impression you did.
So, let’s see if we can get you to stay on one characteristic of this world which we agree upon.
“If there is certainty, then there must be a God.”
– Brandon Neifert Affirms
“If God did not exist, then you could not be certain of anything.”
– Brandon Neifert Affirms
Despite your ramblings, Brandon, you said nothing that would justify the the claims that:
“If there is certainty, then there must be a God”;
or
“If God did not exist, then you could not be certain of anything.”
You said you “see certainty” and credit God for it; presuppose God as the “necessary precondition” to such certainty.
Once you define “certainty” without a reference to God, and then show that in a world without God such would not be possible, then maybe you will be on to something.
Did I miss your definition of certainty, Brandon?
In any case, please post it.
Until then, your presuppositions about all of that provides no “proof that God exists”.
Like I say:
Grant your presupposition and you win.
Deny it and you lose.
I deny it.
You……………….!

.



 


Comments

Brandon Neifert v. Robert Baty on KENT HOVIND — No Comments

Leave a Reply