Watch for Updates

Originally posted July 4, 2016

by Robert Baty

The cornerstone of Kent Hovind’s false legal narrative is Kent’s continued misrepresentation of what the law and regulations were that were used to charge, try and convict him of “structuring”.  Matthew Demello made his appearance on this website and on the dates of July 2, 2016 and July 3, 2016 he and I had an exchange dealing with the subject and which is instructive regarding the nature of Kent Hovind’s problem and those that would try to defend his error(s).  The exchange took place on another page here and so this page has been set up to present the stand-alone exchange for the historical record, public scrutiny, analysis, and commentary.

Related page: http://kehvrlb.com/proposition-59-demello-v-baty-the-investigation

This was an informal exchange and the following posts in that exchange are shown in the time order of posting.  They appear on the related link page in different order.  There are others postings in that exchange that were not deemed relevant to the specific “structuring” discussion and so have not be copied here.  You can go to the related page noted above for the complete history.

The challenge to Kent Hovind to come out to me or send his Champion out to meet me remains outstanding as presented on the home page here at:

http://kehvrlb.com/

Demello v. Baty on “Structuring”

---

1. Matthew Demello – July 2, 2016 at 11:59 PM

 

I HAVE debated you before and you just lie like crazy. I show you links to prove what I’m saying and you STILL ignore them. Right in the structuring law it states “there needs to be a pattern in order to convict someone of structuring” Every day is a new day so what does the word “pattern” mean to you?? A pattern should be MORE THEN one time in 1 day. Kent took out 1 transaction once a week or most of the times once every 12 days. Does that seem like a pattern to you??? You can’t prove that. You just can’t. A pattern to me would be taking the same amount out twice in one day. that’s a pattern. That is something Kent never did. Now I don’t know how you got my post on here. I’m not ok with it. I didn’t ask for you to take my name and post it in this idiot website of yours. Why don’t you go after others who have committed billion dolor crimes like Obama’s pastor?? Why Kent. Also I don’t really want to be on this website. I just don’t trust you all. For all I know you got a hack working with you who hacks everyone who thinks this structuring is wrong.

---

2. Robert Baty – July 3, 2016 at 8:51 AM

Matt,

Thanks for making your appearance. As you know, I am the one that thinks you and Kent flat out lie about these important public issues.

We need not trade barbs over that. Your course seems so typical of Kent and his people; offer lame excuses for refusing to openly and honestly discuss Kent’s legal problems and related issues (i.e., your claim about me being under investigation).

I notice you offered nothing by way of a commitment to discuss that issue and, more importantly, advise when your first affirmative in support of your proposition might be expected.

Like before, you duck and weave, bob and dodge, run to and fro and won’t do as Kent suggests; take up one issue at a time, with specificity.

I have a proposition dealing with the structuring issue, and if you prefer to abandon your “investigation” proposition, we might be able to advance that discussion.

That’s proposition #2 in the list of what is now 61 propositions. You may wish, however, given your comments above, to frame your own proposition for consideration.

For instance, I notice you wrote, in part:

“Right in the structuring law it states ‘there needs to be a pattern in order to convict someone of structuring’.”

I don’t think that is true, and I notice you failed to even reference or actually quote the law. That law and related regulations are readily accessible on-line.

Matt, your statement suggests you have no idea what the law actually says on the subject, much less the related regulations. Both were referenced quite clearly in Kent’s indictment which was used to try and convict him and which indictment was upheld on appeal.

So, Matt, make up your mind, if you will:

Run off!
Rant on!
Pick one proposition for discussion?
Offer another legitimate alternative which might advance our discussion.

---

3. Robert Baty – July 3, 2016 at 8:56 AM

By the way, Matt, I have excerpts from the law and regulations as a stand-alone page on this website.

Here’s the link:

http://kehvrlb.com/structuring-indictment-law-regulation

My references there don’t support your claim about the structuring law.

Can you frame a proposition that might reflect a substantive point of disagreement on that which you are willing to discuss openly and honestly, with application to the case of Kent Hovind??????

---

4. Robert Baty – July 3, 2016 at 10:33 AM

Matt,

Maybe we can advance the discussion based on this proposition which you have affirmed:

Demello v. Baty Structuring Proposition for Debate

The structuring law states:
“there needs to be a pattern in order to convict someone of structuring”.

– Matthew Demello: Affirm
– Robert Baty: Deny

We should be able to get through that one rather quickly.

If you can provide the legal reference to the law, a quote therefrom, and a link to where it can be found on-line, then I can either accept your position or explain why I think you have failed to establish the truth of your claim.

Perhaps, if you realize that your claim is false you can quickly repent, bring forth your works meet for such repentance, and we can go our separate ways or take up some other proposition of mutual interest.

---

5. Matthew Demello – July 3, 2016 at 8:34 PM

You do nothing but lie and you just LOVE to say others lie. Look at you posting pictures trying to say “Kent likes boys” or something. Are you that hateful??? Are you that against Kent that you are willing to make things up?? So you have never cut your grass and let your nephew or kids sit next to you on the lawnmower?? ohhh come on already. That right there shows you are not serious. You are not honest. Funny enough 1 of your supporters sent me the “structuring law” where it says “it needs to be in a pattern” and you just wrote “I don’t think that’s true” what are you going to do when I prove you wrong on that right now!! huh?? will you say sorry I got that wrong?? This is the actual quote from the law itself! 1.Structuring is the practice of conducting financial transactions in a SPECIFIC PATTERN calculated to avoid the creation of certain records and reports required by the Bank Secrecy Act (BSA) and/or 26 USC 6050I (Form 8300). I JUST PROVED YOU WRONG!! it doesn’t even say “it has to be in a pattern” it says “It HAS to be in a SPECIFIC PATTERN” you are wrong. AND since IF I don’t give the link here I KNOW for a fact you will say “You are lying because I didn’t share the link” see you are very wrong and dishonest. How can anyone debate you??? IF you are NOT even willing to admit structuring needs to be in a pattern IN ORDER TO BE CONVICTED! here is the LINK! https://www.irs.gov/irm/part4/irm_04-026-013.html#d0e48

Go to the 4.26.13.1 (01-07-2016)
Overview

---

6. Matthew Demello – July 3, 2016 at 8:44 PM

Where on earth did you get that version of the “structuring law” from?? its obviously wrong. You completely left out that there needs to be a specific pattern in order to convict someone” Go read my other reply. I proved you wrong. You see I got the law definition RIGHT FROM THE IRS.GOV WEBSITE. Where in your post of the law you didn’t even mention what website you got that law from. Go read the IRS law that I sent you and put it next to your version. You’ll see you are wrong. There DOES NEED TO BE A PATTER. What you think if someone 1 day takes out 9.5k that that’s actually structuring?? lol wow you have a lot to learn. You actually believe that without a pattern, anyone taking 9k out is structuring??? Well I guess you never bought a car for 8K or 4K then huh??? I bet with your own definition of structuring that you are guilty to then.

---

7. Robert Baty – July 3, 2016 at 8:56 PM

Matt, thanks for returning, but you really need to quit ranting and get on with trying to establish the truth of your proposition which is, as I have posted:

The structuring law states:
“there needs to be a pattern in order to convict someone of structuring”.

You have affirmed and I have denied.

You stated in your latest submission that:

“(One) of your supporters sent me the ‘structuring law’
where it says ‘it needs to be in a pattern’ and you just
wrote ‘I don’t think that’s true’ what are you going to
do when I prove you wrong on that right now!!”

Well, you are a long way from showing that I am the one in error.

Maybe you will return to try again; I welcome your continuing effort. As Kent would say, for our “students”.

Here’s what’s wrong with your latest effort, Matt.

Where ever you may have gotten that link, the link does not take you to the law, and your quote is not from the law.

You can find the law referenced in your quote at:
https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/26/6050I

You need to go there and try to find your proposition and get back to me as to where you think you see it. 26 USC 6050I does have something to say about structuring, but it doesn’t say, I propose, what you claim.

Be more careful next time you return, Matt, and either repent and bring forth your works meet for your repentance or something that someone might actually thinks supports your proposition for my acceptance or further rebuttal.

---

8. Robert Baty – July 3, 2016 at 9:21 PM

Matt, you struggle so in your effort to keep from accepting the truth of the matter.

Your proposition reads:

“The structuring law states:
‘there needs to be a pattern in order to convict someone of structuring’.”

You did not get your quote from the law and now further admit it is from the IRS site, which is a section of the Internal Revenue Manual.

You did not get your quote from the law cited in your IRM reference (26 USC 6050I).

I continue to propose, Matt, that your proposition is not in the law and what you misrepresent in the IRM is not relevant to your proposition. I am not interested in arguing about what the IRM says on the subject. The issue in Kent’s case is too simple to be distracted by your quibbling over the IRM. The law and the regulations are what was cited in Kent’s indictment.

I have the citations to the law and regulations and relevant quotes on my site here at:
http://kehvrlb.com/structuring-indictment-law-regulation

Repent, Matt, and bring forth your works meet for repentance, or try again to present something that might actually be construed to support your proposition for my acceptance or further rebuttal.

---

9. Matthew Demello – July 3, 2016 at 9:35 PM

So you didn’t accept the link I sent you right from the IRS/government site itself??? wow. Also the picture of the kid on the tractor is NOT A BOY like you said. That’s actually a little girl. You are just wrong on everything. The link you just sent me only deals with people taking OVER 10k. Not under 10k. So according to THAT website law code Kent didn’t do that. He took out 9.5k every 12 days or so. Tell me how that’s breaking the law? When it comes to taking over 10k yes you NEED to fill out the right forms BUT when it comes to taking out under 10k there NEEDS TO BE A PATTERN. You know. 2 related transactions in the same day or every day. It honestly should be VERY difficult to charge someone with structuring when it comes to taking out under 10k BUT it should be very easy to charge someone who takes 10k and doesn’t fill out the form. Even though I prove you wrong. You will never admit it. I’m shocked that the IRS even hires people like you. Someone who makes the law fit into what they want so that they are not held to any standard at all.

---

10. Robert Baty – July 3, 2016 at 9:52 PM

Matt, really, now you are trying to escape by talking about the girl on the tractor, which I did, in fact, identify as a girl!

Shame on you, Matt, shame on you; all the more you have to repent of!
However, that additional example does help illustrate just what kind of problems you are having in these simple matters.

Your proposition remains:

“The structuring law states:
‘there needs to be a pattern in order to convict someone of structuring’.”

Nope!
You offered nothing to support and justify that proposition.

Let’s look at some details:

You wrote:

“So you didn’t accept the link I sent you right from the IRS/government site itself???”

I accept it for what it is, and it doesn’t contain a justification for your proposition.

You wrote:

“The link you just sent me only deals with people taking OVER 10k. Not under 10k.”

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

Here’s that link again, Matt, and if you insist on continuing with your false claim, please, please, please, cite the reference and quote something you think says and/or means what you claimed.

http://kehvrlb.com/structuring-indictment-law-regulation

You wrote:

“He took out 9.5k every 12 days or so.
Tell me how that’s breaking the law?”

Read the law, read the regulations.

In each instance, by definition, Kent broke the law because he was evading the bank reporting rules. Kent admits to the facts that, by definition, make him guilty of structuring, but Kent’s problem, one of many, is, like you, he lies about what the law and regulations actually say about what structuring is.

You wrote:

“(W)hen it comes to taking out under 10k there
NEEDS TO BE A PATTERN.
You know.
2 related transactions in the same day or every day.”

Wrong! Wrong! Wrong!

You claim the law says something like that, but you have shown nothing to support that and the law and regulations I have given you clearly establish YOU ARE WRONG, MATT!

You wrote:

“It honestly should be VERY difficult to charge someone
with structuring when it comes to taking out under 10k
BUT it should be very easy to charge someone who takes
10k and doesn’t fill out the form.”

That’s a rather subjective matter. It was, honestly, “very difficult” to charge Kent, but, after such difficulty the case was made, the facts were clear, and the jury convicted and such conviction was upheld after “100” appeals and motions.

You wrote:

“Even though I prove you wrong.
You will never admit it.”

Matt, you are the one playing the hypocrite and accusing me of what is your problem. You’ve not gotten close to showing the law says and/or means what you claimed, and yet you have yet to repent and bring forth your works meet for repentance or something worthy of the proposition for my acceptance. You have made me look good in being able to very simply refute your claims.

You are welcome, Matt, but it’s time to get serious about your repentance and works meet for such repentance.

You write:

“I’m shocked that the IRS even hires people like you.
Someone who makes the law fit into what they want so
that they are not held to any standard at all.”

With such claims, Matt, you bring all the more “coals of fire” upon your own head.
Matt, really, repent and bring forth your works meet for repentance.

---

11. Matthew Demello – July 3, 2016 at 10:05 PM

The link you sent me before only deals with the forms you have to fill out after going over 10k. This is the VERY first sentence on that link. (a) Cash receipts of more than $10,000 Any person— It doesn’t say “below or above 10k” now the link I sent you deals with solely taking under 10k out in PATTERNS. So you are still trying to lie and say “The link I sent you doesn’t say anything about patterns??? are you serious?? wow. Ok I’m all set here. all done. I also don’t like your tone. You sound like someone who will try to hack my computer and find out what I do for a living and so on. I don’t want to get involved.

---

12. Robert Baty – July 3, 2016 at 10:18 PM

Matt, you are continuing to evade actually trying to establish your proposition which reads:

“The structuring law states:
‘there needs to be a pattern in order to convict someone of structuring’.”

It does NOT read:

“Matt can find a link that says structuring requires a pattern.”

Here’s the link I sent you, where the relevant law and regulations are cited and quoted as applicable to the Kent Hovind case:

http://kehvrlb.com/structuring-indictment-law-regulation

Your reference about the $10,000 has to do with filing reports and is 26 USC 6050I. You need to be more clear to state what it is you are are talking about so I don’t have to try and figure it out.

I did not deny that your reference to the Internal Revenue Manual had at least one comment about “pattern”
I denied that was the law or was relevant to establishing your proposition.

Matt, your proposition is:

“The structuring law states:
‘there needs to be a pattern in order to convict someone of structuring’.”

You have offered nothing in support of your proposition, Matt, and now you indicate you are going to execute your lame exit strategy.

Thanks for the demonstrations.

You sound like someone who is stiffnecked against the truth and is beyond repentance, but I am long suffering and will welcome you back; preferably when you repent or have something substantive to offer regarding these important public issues.

---