Edwardpf123 is a YouTuber and Kent Hovind broadcaster with whom I, Robert Baty, have had previous experience with.  Edward had 2 or more video broadcasts where he referred to me quite critically while promoting Kent Hovind’s false legal narrative which I noticed today had been deleted from his channel.

Edward’s broadcast yesterday was rant against Steven Anderson who recently criticized Kent Hovind based on his announced plans to marry Mary Tocco.

I had occasion to engage Edward in the comments section following that broadcast in the context of the deleted videos and Edwards apologetic efforts regarding Kent Hovind’s false legal narrative.

Following is the link to Edward’s video and the exchange which transpired on September 23, 2016.


1. From Edwardpf123 to Frups

The real issue is that there is a right for remarriage that Anderson doesn’t address.


2. From Robert Baty to Edwardpf123

Hello, Edward

I notice that you seem to have deleted some of your
videos dealing my objections to your promotion of
Kent Hovind’s false legal narrative.
I don’t remember any public announcement about that.
As for the current fuss, Kent Hovind sent his wife to
prison as assuredly as King David sent Uriah to his
death, and Kent remains UNrepentant.
Additionally, Kent is UNrepentant regarding his decades
long criminal conduct and has pledged the rest of his
life to promoting his false legal narrative.
As for the marriage thing, I think Kent was planning to
keep it secret until the ceremony was over, but I started spreading the rumor and it forced his hand and he went
public with it.
Mary’s quite a catch:
I didn’t listen to your full video, but I got the impression that
you agree there just might be something wrong with Kent
marrying Mary.
I would agree with that, and deciding that issue involves
factual issues and biblical interpretation, all of which is
subject to some dispute.
As for the legal narrative, Edward, you might check out
my recently established stand-alone website and let me
know if you want to get together for a video dealing with
Kent’s legal narrative and/or related matters. I currently
have 63 propositions from which to choose, or you may
have one or more of your own.
3. Edwardpf123 to Robert Baty
I deleted some videos that no longer had any relevance
since Hovind was now free.
I have not changed my mind that the charges were
trumped up since the structuring laws are nonsense.
I agree that Hovind has a right to remarry as any one
does who meets the Biblical critera for doing so.
4. Edwardpf123 to Robert Baty
What do those photos have to do with the right to remarry?
5. Robert Baty to Edwardpf123
That’s a rather deceptive explanation, deliberate or not,
for tampering with the evidence regarding the history
of the popular public discussion of Kent’s legal/tax and
related problems.
Kent is still serving his sentence, and has pledged the
rest of his life to promoting his legal narrative which I
claim is false.
Those videos were relevant and will remain relevant
whether available now or not. Your deletion of the videos
will contribute to the valuable historic record of how Kent
and his people have dealt with the matter.
I thank you for your response and demonstration.
Let me know if you decide to take up the matters further
and wish to choose from the 63 propositions I have in
my Hovind Challenge or wish to propose one of your own.
6. Edwardpf123 to Robert Baty
No it isn’t deceptive at allThat was a side issue for this
channel which was over.
Hovind was found guilty of a bogus charge, which was
removing his own money from a bank.
The structuring laws themselves are unjust as even the
government was forced to admit.
Nothing left to discuss and your comments are simply
7. Robert Baty to Edwardpf123
Your lame excuse and continued effort to defend Hovind
is further testimony that I was correct in my criticisim of
your deletion of those videos.
The charges weren’t bogus, and we could debate that
issue if you were so inclined. One or more of those 63
propositions deals with that issue.
Also, the structuring laws are not unjust and Kent has
yet to admit, as you seem to also refuse to admit, just
what the law and regulations are relevant to Kent’s case.
That’s proposition #2 which you can easily find and
either affirm or deny at:
Really, Edward, “nothing left to discuss”!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Run off and issue forth your lame, deceptive, false and/or
misleading claims it you will.
It certainly adds to the demonstration and I thank you for that.
8. Edwardpf123 to Robert Baty
I defend anyone convicted of those bogus structuring
No one should be convicted for taking his own money
out of the bank!
So, you start with a false premise that the laws aren’t
unjust, when they actually are.
And the videos were no longer relevant to anything
since Hovind was freed, despite your perverse efforts
to stop it.
9. Robert Baty to Edwardpf123
The structuring laws are not bogus, Edward, and
you have yet to demonstrate you are even familiar
with what they are as opposed to Kent’s false legal
narrative regarding.
Do you join with Kent in affirming that Proposition #2
that I directed you to, or do you join with me in denying it?
Kent was not “convicted of taking his own money out
of the bank”, but I am glad to see you seem to accept,
contrary to some representations by Kent and his people,
that it was Kent’s money and it was Kent’s account.
You, Edward, seem to be the one starting with a false
premise that you dare not come out and publicly address
in an open, honest way.
Your videos would not stop being relevant, did not stop
being relevant, based on Kent’s release from prison.
Edward, I think you are just lying about why you deleted
those videos.
Thanks again for your continuing demonstrations regarding
these important public issues.
I have mirrored this conversation on my dedicated Hovind
FaceBook page at:
That’s in order to try and preserve this important historical
record for others since you have implied you will again be
tampering with the evidence and deleting these comments.
10. Edwardpf123 to Robert Baty
I know full well what the structuring laws are and they
are immoral.
How much money one deposits or withdraws from a
bank is not the government’s business.
And that was what Hovind was convicted for so he
should be unrepentant since he was convicted with
an evil law.
Frankly, I don’t care what you think about anything.
Now, stop posting your idiotic nonsense to me.
11. Robert Baty to Edwardpf123
That works both ways, Edward. I don’t care what
you think about anything either. You just provide an excellent, continuing example of how “nutty” you
and Kent’s apologists can be and are, quite typically.
You can claim you know and understand the law
as applied to Kent’s case, but you have yet to demonstrate it and from your previous demonstrations
you most definitely DID NOT know and understand
what the law was.
The only idiotic nonsense in this exchange is coming
from your keyboard, Edward.
You know that.
I know that.
You have been beaten, Edward, and you tampered
with the evidence to try and hide the fact.
Come out some time when you are ready to be open
and honest about these matters and we can work
on negotiating for a more proper, formal discussion
of some matter of mutual interest relating to Kent’s
legal/tax and related matters.
Or, feel free to stay in hiding and covering for your
obvious blundering about these things.
12. Edwardpf123 to Robert Baty
You really are quite dense!
I said the law was immoral and therefore could
care less how it was applied to Hovind’s case,
since it was immoral in the first place.
You are really quite pathetic!
it is you who has been beaten by the fact that
Hovind is now a free man despite your best
efforts to keep in him in prison.
How I am in hiding?
You really are demented.
13. Robert Baty to Edwardpf123
You can say anything you want about the law, Edward, and your opinion is not unexpected; it’s just irrelevant.
Get it, your opinion about the law is not relevant.
What the law is as applied to the Hovind case is relevant, and you
refuse to deal with your false and misleading claims about that.
That’s hiding out, and it is made all the more manifest in your
actions in deleting those videos, which also includes comments
following them.
Calling names, like you have continued to do, and make your
lame characterizations, is just another manner in which your
hiding out manifests itself.
Hovind is not a free man.
Hovind is serving 3 years of Supervised Release.
My invitation to you remains outstanding.
Just let me know if you ever decide to openly and honestly
engage the issues Kent Hovind has pledged the rest of
his life to pursue (i.e., his legal narrative) and the related
matters such as reflected in those 63 propositions and we
can begin the negotiations.
Or continue running and hiding.
14. Edwardpf123 to Robert Baty
It is very relevant regarding why Hovind was an
innocent man.
No different then any person being convicted by
any unjust law.
15. Robert Baty to Edwardpf123
There you go again, Edward; making your claims and
having no open, honest intention of ever facing me and
dealing with our differences on such things.
You say Kent was innocent.
I say he was not innocent.
You say the law is unjust.
I say the law is not unjust.
For instance, Kent Hovind has admitted to facts sufficient
to show he was in violation of the law, for example, on
You would know that if you knew the facts and the law.
Come to think of it, I think you now know the law and the
facts and you just are not open and honest enough to
admit to what the law is as applied to Kent and that Kent
was guilty as charged and convicted in 2006.
16. Edwardpf123 to Robert Baty
If you say the law isn’t unjust you are supporting
government control over the individual’s property
and are a supporter of tyranny.
No doubt you would have liked Nazi Germany
and Soviet Russia.
17. Robert Baty to Edwardpf123
According to Godwin’s Law, Edward, you have again
lost the “debate”.
Your opening statement in that most recent posting
is false; simple as that.
However, Edward, I am the long-suffering sort and am
more than willing to consider any proposition you may
wish to have considered for debate on the “just/unjust”
characterization of the law of structuring once we have
our debate on what the law on structuring is/was as
applied to the Kent Hovind case.
Had you not tampered with the evidence, Edward, you
and others could probably check the following easy
enough by simply pulling up those old videos and
checking them and the comments section.
My own archived reference to your position, at least
in part, is as follows and, as shown, I have denied
your affirmative.
Edwardpf123′s Structuring Proposal for Discussion
If anybody withdraws less than $10,000 from their
bank then they themselves are guilty of the same
structuring laws as Kent Hovind.
– Edwardpf123 – Affirm
– Robert Baty – Deny
So, Edward, do you still hold that position or not?
If so, we have our issue for discussion.
If not, please explain and give an account of what
position you now hold.
Or keep running!
18. Robert Baty to Edwardpf123
Edward, I just ran across two of your deleted videos that
are still archived on Rudy’s channel, and folks are encouraged
to review them and decide whether your stated reason(s) for
deleting them are true or false.
Also, in finding those I also happened to find where you
affirmed the position I presented to you as your position
in my earlier post here. That can be found around the
3:20 mark as indicated by the following time-marked link:
You mention me more than once in that video, Edward.
So, again you are asked to let us know if the following
remains your position or not:
If anybody withdraws less than $10,000 from their
bank then they themselves are guilty of the same
structuring laws as Kent Hovind.
– Edwardpf123 – Affirm
– Robert Baty – Deny
Maybe we will yet advance this important conversation.
Maybe not.


Edwardpf123 v. Robert Baty – Structuring — No Comments

Leave a Reply

HTML tags allowed in your comment: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>