A Hovind Call for Help Pic 07042016

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:


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


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:


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


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 (01-07-2016)

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:

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:

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’.”

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.


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
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:


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.




Demello v. Baty – On “Structuring” — 8 Comments

  1. Some evidence of the direct connection between Matthew Demello and Kent Hovind:



    (Begin quote.)

    From: TheMattd546
    Time: About 12 hours ago

    It was NICE talking to you on the phone today Dr. Brother Hovind.

    Like I said “i was about 12 years old when I got into your videos”
    me and my sister use to watch them all the time and now I’m 33 years old.
    so that’s a long time.

    Also I had to bring to your attention that there is a hater spreading
    a photo of your throat saying “there is a huge lump” when in fact the
    guy photoshoped it and finally admitted it to me.

    You are the man Kent.

    (End quote.)

  2. There is also this from Matt:



    (Begin quote.)

    From: TheMattd546
    Date: About 1 day ago

    So I heard that Robert Batey might be investigated by the
    fbi and got kicked off facebook??

    that’s AWESOME!!

    I can’t stand that man.
    He is evil to the core.

    He keeps saying you are lying but I got into an argument
    with him saying “You shouldn’t be filing false police reports
    on Kent” and he said “I didn’t do that” now look who’s lying?


    (End quote.)

    A short discussion ensued there with Bertus Den Droef, but you can only see TheMattd546’s comments because of the censoring that goes on with Kent’s video comments.


  3. Matt also spent a considerable amount of time jousting with some folks on my dedicated Hovind page; about structuring. In the end, it appears that Matt could not accept the consequences and deleted that thread which he had started.

    Don’t you just hate it when Kent’s kowardly kult members do that!

    Here’s the link to that FaceBook page:


    Here’s the link to Matt’s personal FaceBook page which he was using to post to my dedicated Hovind page:



  4. This is my discussion i had with Matt (which get’s censored by Youtube):

    In a few days Robert will be back on Facebook, his 30 day jail time will be over. Erin (from freekenthovind dot com) falsely reported him.

    He has his own website now kehvrlb dot com.

    Is it true Kent has cancer?
    He should visit a doctor ASAP.


    (1) From Matthew Demello (aka TheMattd546) to Bertus Den Droef
    If Kent has cancer then it was somehow given to him in prison to try and kill him. Where did you hear that from??

    Also “Falsely reported him”????
    So Robert did not file false police reports on Kent? or harassment/intimidate him? 

    So Robert did not give any death threats towards Kent??

    you all lie so much.

    I remember asking Robert “So did you really file a false police report on Kent abusing children by making them work at DAL”??? and Robert said “NOOOO I didn’t do that Kent lied”

    THEN I scrolled through his Facebook channel and there was a post from Robert saying “Please contact children services on Kent” so who lied then?????

    Robert lied.

    He told me he didn’t do that YET he has a post telling all his dumb viewers who do nothing in the world but hate on Kent telling them to falsely “report Kent”

    You all are sooo full of crap I actually smile watching all this.

    Robert EVEN if he said is not true but he IS IN FACT being investigated right now over claims and false reports he has committed over Kent.

    He needs to come forward and tell you the truth.
    He’s a liar.


    (2) From Bertus Den Droef to Matthew Demello

    Just visit kehvrlb dot com and the “Kent and Jo Hovind vs USA – IRS” facebook page.

    I have seen no evidence that Robert filed false police reports.
    I have never seen evidence that Robert threatened Kent with death.
    In fact he wants him to visit a doctor for his thyroid looks really bad.

    Child protection services is not the same as the police.

    Asking people to contact child protection services is not the same as asking them to file police reports.

    When Kent can’t defend himself he accuses the messengers.

    It’s an age old tactic used by a lot of religious people.

    Kent is not a criminal, no way, everyone involved in his case and everyone reporting on him is a criminal.

    Please show evidence that Robert Baty is under investigation or shut up about it.


    (3) From Matthew Demello to Bertus Den Droef

    Robert Baty filed police reports saying Kent and his folks said they was going to kill him WHEN KENT NEVER SAID THAT.

    He is the liar and the fact you can’t even admit that proves you are part of his a cult.

    Robert, the government and a judge that is known for not being far towards Christians can do no wrong according to you.

    The transcripts are not even fully accurate. They didn’t even add things that was said in the court room and you are telling me that’s fare??

    why didn’t they add the part when the judge said “Kent’s crimes are worse then rape”???

    there are many of witnesses AND even some who didn’t know who Kent was who witnessed that who was in the court room BUT ohhhh NOOOOO it was all justified.

    Law makers are in the works now for changing the structuring law.

    What will you Robert a cult group do then????

    He IS being investigated.
    You wait and see.
    He already got kicked off Facebook.

    IF they kicked Kent off Facebook I’m SURE you all would be loving it and writing news reports on it on every news paper station there is. also YES WHEN YOU FILE A CHILD SERVICES FALSE REPORT YOU CAN BE PUT IN PRISON OR PAY A HUGE FINE FOR FALSE REPORTS!!!

    I’m sure Robert didn’t read the tiny print on the bottom of the report.

    Actually on every report they investigate it AND if the reporter was wrong they are brought up on charges!


    (4) From Bertus Den Droef to Matthew Demello

    I have seen no evidence of any police report by Robert Baty.

    You are the one who blindly believes everything KH says without evidence, not me.

    That’s a clear sign that you are in a cult and blindly follow / believe everything the leader tells you.

    If you show me evidence (e.g. a copy of the police report) i will believe you until then not for i’ve learned that fundamentalist christians are not very trustworthy.

    The judge did not say his crime was worse than a rape.

    Eric used those words on the sentencing day of his mother.
    We have evidence that it was not said.

    Eric can’t remember the judge saying it, another lady (a christian lady mind you) made notes at the trial and it’s not in her notes.

    Besides if the judge really said that, they should have protested right away. They did not do that, for it was never said.

    The “worse than rape” affidavits are a fake.
    The notary on the affidavits is “Lady Di” you know, kent’s best female friend till the end. (She became a notary for $ 85.-)

    The structuring law is not being changed as far as i know. The IRS did apologize to some folks, but not to Kent.

    The other folks had no criminal intent, Kent had a criminal intent, namely tax avoidance. Kent probably would have never gone to prison if he hired a decent defence team and played by the rules.


    (5) From Bertus Den Droef to Matthew Demello

    Facebook does block people for nothing.
    Do you really think all the reports are carefully read?


    (6) From Matthew Demello to Bertus Den Droef

    Are you the same guy on facebook spreading this lie that Kent has cancer??? the same guy who photoshoped a fake picture of Kent’s throat with a ball or something attached to it???

    Yeah I just proved that guy wrong on Facebook and he finally admitted that he photoshoped that so you can drop that “cancer” lie.


    (7) From Bertus Den Droef to Matthew Demello

    Uh no i’m not that guy.
    You know who those people are.

    He did admit he photoshopped the picture to zoom in and draw a circle around the affected area.

    Once you rewatch the original video you can clearly see there is something hanging there under his chin. No denying that.


    • Bertus,

      Thanks for that valuable bit of history that Kent has censored via his YouTube channel.

      I took the liberty to edit it a bit to make it easier to read and follow.

      Hope you don’t mind.

      If you do, let me know of any additional changes you might want me to make or go in and edit it yourself. I think you will find there have been no substantive changes; just cosmetic stuff for clarity.


  5. LOL is this whole dumb website going to all be about me now?? this is strange. You don’t even know me yet you are posting all my comments on here. Is that even legal?? I’m not sure if you can copy everything I say and then write it ALL on this public website. I didn’t get paid from you or give you permission to do this. Here is the funny thing though. You started with 5 followers and then once you hated on Kent you gained about 100 AND now you are back to about 5. Every time I comment on YOUR Facebook page I only get about 3 of the SAME people in every comment. That’s all I see is 3 people in your small a cult.

    • Idiot. Not everybody comments and there’s no sense in repeating the same thing from different people. Sheesh, cult thinking is pathetic.

  6. Pluto,

    What strikes me in such situations is how Kent’s people demonstrate over and over and over again their technique of doing everything they can think of to evade facing the truth regarding Kent Hovind’s legal issues and openly and honestly dealing with them.

    Despite having the opportunity and taking some time to post yet again here, Matt offers nothing to try and support his proposition, repent, or bring forth his works meet for repentance.

    These simple truths do seem so much of burden for Kent and his people to bear an they choose instead to take the easy, UNgodly route of attacking the messenger.

    Matt’s proposition remains outstanding should he or another wish to return and take up that conversation:

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

    Matthew Demello (for Kent Hovind): Affirm
    Robert Baty: Deny


    P.S. – I was advised this morning that my old adversary who specialized in tampering with evidence, Sheila Duffy, is for some reason on a rant about me and these things. She, like Matt and other Hovindicators, are quite sore losers.

    See: https://www.facebook.com/groups/490216391058931/permalink/1071565362924028/


Leave a Reply