Watch for Updates

.

.

This exchange between Robert Baty and Kent Hovind’s handler Ernest (Ernie) Land took place via a FaceBook thread begun by Peter J. Reilly on an unrelated subject involving Ernest Land and to which Ernest Land posted a couple of responses, prompting me to reply as indicated in the record below.

.

Link to Exchange

.

https://www.facebook.com/peterreillycpa/posts/10208679598382412

.

Message #1 – From Robert Baty

.

It just so happens that I ran across Joseph Edward the other day and he has committed himself to trying to establish Kent Hovind’s position as to “structuring” (i.e., what is required for the crime of structuring to occur).
.
Some may be aware that Ernest Land is Kent Hovind’s handler.
.
While I was negotiating with Joseph, he actually called Ernie’s Kent Hovind, according to Joseph. Instead of facilitate a discussion directly between Kent and me, Joseph just relayed Kent’s message to me: “STOP”!
.
So, Kent Hovind continues to hide out from facing what I refer to as his false legal narrative, and related matters, which he has pledged the rest of his life to promoting.
.
Joseph and I are still working out the details for the proposed debate.
.
See:
.
http://kehvrlb.com/joseph-edward-v-robert-baty-structuring 

.

Message #2 – From Robert Baty

.

Here’s the proposition that we have agreed to discuss:
.
Proposition #2 for Debate
.
Structuring requires 2 or more transactions
of $10,000 or less,
on the same day,
that total more than $10,000.
.
– Kent Hovind: Affirm
– Joseph Edward: Affirm

– Robert Baty: Deny

.

Message #3 – From Ernest Land

.

Baty, do you ever use any of your time for constructive things.

.

I never see anything from you except evil doing, always trying to tear down instead of build up anything.

.

Get a life.

This is over and past.

.

We have moved on to winning souls and baptising believers.

.

I, nor Kent have any time to waste on your false narratives. You remind me of the liberals, can’t win a debate, so tear down the debater.

.

Get over it.

.

Message #4 – From Robert Baty

.

That’s not true, Ernest.
.
In his most recent videos, Kent Hovind has been promoting the work of Brady Byrum, someone else you have promoted, which proposes to establish Kent was not guilty of “structuring” or another crimes.
.
Kent has pledged the rest of his life to promoting his false legal narrative.
.
So, my ministry has job security.
.
If you think it otherwise, I would welcome Kent’s personal, public action to make it clear that “I am right and Kent was wrong (i.e., guilty as charged)”.
.
Of course, Kent also has a lot of other matters to address with me as well, but we can take them one at a time. Kent says structuring is fundamental to understanding his legal problems, and I think that is a workable foundation on which we can advance the discussion.
.
I notice also, Ernie, you remain so typical in failing to address the substance of the matter; preferring instead to embark on another “go to hell” message.

.

Message # 5 – From Ernest Land

.

You got my message correct, but add I have no time to waste on the likes of you.

.

Also your debate of Kent affirming is close to correct but once again a false narrative.

.

Leave off the timeline on 2 withdrawals in “a day” and add with the intent to avoid reporting and you might get a affirmation, but once again you promote a false narrative, so take your idea of my message to you as the only true narrative.

.

Message #6 – From Robert Baty

.

You have the time, Ernest, you are just not man enough to face the substantive issues and openly, honestly deal with them.
.
The proposition is taken from Kent’s own claims which he has repeated over and over and over and over…………again.
.
If he now rejects that proposition and wants to admit and correct his error, he is more than welcome to do so. Otherwise, I know of no reason to believe he has changed his position on that and his innocence claims.
.
As I noted earlier, Ernie, I am the one that is willing to defend my claim that Kent’s legal narrative is false, while you keep claiming I am the one with the false narrative without daring to face me and explore your claim(s) regarding that.
.
You can review Kent’s lies about structuring in this article which quotes Kent from one of his summer appearances:
.
http://kehvrlb.com/kent-hovind-lies-to-rierie-marie-f-ale
.
If Kent is going to reject Joseph Edward’s affirmative, he needs to come out publicly, and explicitly disavow the proposition Joseph has committed himself to defending.

.

Message #7 – From Robert Baty

.

You have the time, Ernest, you are just not man enough to face the substantive issues and openly, honestly deal with them.

.

The proposition is taken from Kent’s own claims which he has repeated over and over and over and over…………again.

.

If he now rejects that proposition and wants to admit and correct his error, he is more than welcome to do so. Otherwise, I know of no reason to believe he has changed his position on that and his innocence claims.

.

As I noted earlier, Ernie, I am the one that is willing to defend my claim that Kent’s legal narrative is false, while you keep claiming I am the one with the false narrative without daring to face me and explore your claim(s) regarding that.

.

You can review Kent’s lies about structuring in this article which quotes Kent from one of his summer appearances:

.

http://kehvrlb.com/kent-hovind-lies-to-rierie-marie-f-ale

.

If Kent is going to reject Joseph Edward’s affirmative, he needs to come out publicly, and explicitly disavow the proposition Joseph has committed himself to defending.

.

Message #8 – From Robert Baty

.

Ernest Land, you suggested you and Kent might now reject what I have represented as being Kent Hovind’s position and join with me in affirming the following:
.
Structuring Proposition
.
Structuring requires a cash transaction
of $10,000 or less with the intent to
avoid bank reporting rules.
.
– Kent Hovind: (To Affirm or Deny)
– Ernest Land: (To Affirm or Deny)

– Robert Baty: Affirm
.
OK, Kent, Ernest, I am waiting for your explicit affirmations or denials.

.

Message #9 – From Ernest Land

.

Come on man!

.

A series of transactions that exceed $10,000 to avoid bank reporting.

.

Take notice Kent was not knowingly avoiding reporting, but instead was pulling out funds to operate the Ministry, and it was not in any single day and the Judge did err because the charges were for every transaction, so if 4 transactions equaled a $10k amount, instead of 1 charge he got 4.

.

But hey Federal judges are out of control and unConstitutionally erring in their rulings.

.

They should be impeached for their treasons.

.

The Bundy trial Judge would not even allow the mention of Constitution in that trial, so I say try her for treason, which just might happen since Trump is working on draining the swamp.

.

Get over it move on and find a real life!

.

Message #10 – From Robert Baty

.

Slippery as ever, I see, Ernest.
.
You did not even explicitly note your affirmation or denial, but I will assume you deny. We still have to wait for Kent to check in.
.
Structuring Proposition
.
Structuring requires a cash transaction
of $10,000 or less with the intent to
avoid bank reporting rules.
.
– Kent Hovind: (To Affirm or Deny)

– Ernest Land: Deny

– Robert Baty: Affirm
.
And, Ernest, you seem to backtrack about the one-day issue. Make up your mind.
.
Kent has admitted to knowingly transacting his cash withdrawals to avoid bank reporting rules. That’s clearly in the record.
.
Indeed, the charges were for each transaction consistent with the law and the regulations.
.
Let’s try this also as an another alternative so that there is no mistaking your position and possibly Kent’s position:
.
Structuring Proposition
.
Structuring requires a series of cash transactions
(2 or more) of $10,000 or less, which total more
than $10,000 in one day, with the intent to avoid
bank reporting rules.
.
– Kent Hovind: (To Affirm or Deny)
– Ernest Land: (To Affirm or Deny)

– Robert Baty: Deny
.
I’ll be waiting, Ernest, for your explicit affirmation or denial, and for Kent’s should he decide to come out of hiding and take part in this important public discussion.

.

Message #11 – From Robert Baty

.

Ernest Land
.
Your “single day” reference and its intent may not have been clear, so I would also propose the following option:
.
Structuring Proposition
.
Structuring requires a series of cash transactions
(2 or more) of $10,000 or less, which total more
than $10,000, with the intent to avoid bank
reporting rules.
.
– Kent Hovind: (To Affirm or Deny)
– Ernest Land: (To Affirm or Deny)

– Robert Baty: Deny

.

Message #12 – From Robert Baty

.

Ernest Land
.
You wrote to Sean Krakoski, in part:
.
– “I understand one must be knowledgeable
– on a subject to speak to it with any reason,
– so let me help you lose some ignorance.”
.
And so I continue to get you and Kent to make clear what your position is as to “structuring”.
.
Ernest, I am still waiting for both you and Kent to make clear what position you want to take today, September 23, 2017, as my debate negotiations with Joseph Edward continue.
.
Structuring Proposition
.
Structuring requires a series of cash transactions
(2 or more) of $10,000 or less, which total more
than $10,000, with the intent to avoid bank
reporting rules.
.
– Kent Hovind: (To Affirm or Deny)
– Ernest Land: (To Affirm or Deny)

– Robert Baty: Deny

.

Message #13 – From Robert Baty

.

Please note that Joseph Edward has agreed to defend Kent’s historical position on “structuring”; a position which Kent needs to deal with instead of just running off from without explaining his error and correcting it.
.
http://kehvrlb.com/joseph-edward-v-robert-baty-structuring
.
Proposition for Edward/Baty Debate
.
Structuring requires 2 or more transactions
of $10,000 or less,
on the same day,
that total more than $10,000.
.
– Kent Hovind: Affirm
– Joseph Edward: Affirm

– Robert Baty: Deny

.

Message #14 – From Robert Baty

.

Shame on Ernest Land, who probably most certainly knows he has been lying.
.
I was just informed of a broadcast dated September 21, 2017 in which Kent Hovind re-affirms his structuring position as I originally presented in Proposition #2.
.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6BbZuBhYv38&feature=share
.
Around the 22:00 mark:
.
– “…The law says…take out more than $10,000
– in 2 smaller increments IN ONE DAY.

– They call them ‘structuring’…to evade the
– reporting requirements.

– We never did that!

– …All the details can be found on a website,
– kenthovindisinnocent.com...”

— Kent Hovind
— Broadcast September 21, 2017
.
Kent re-affirms other claims as well, Peter J Reilly, like the “rape” charge against Judge Rodgers. And, yes, Peter, he even gets in the references to “Vaseline and baby dolls”.

.

Message #15 – From Ernest Land

.

I affirm,

.

structuring = multiple transactions 2 or more under $10k and together equaling $10k or more with the intent to avoid bank reporting.

.

Message #16 – From Robert Baty

.

Another evasion, I see, Ernie.
.
I see also that you say nothing about what your buddy Kent Hovind is continuing to promote, which is the more important matter than your own misguided efforts.
.
But I will humor you a bit and try to see if you will actually affirm something substantive as it relates to what got Kent convicted.
.
The Proposition For Ernest Land
.
Structuring requires 2 or more cash transactions,
$10,000 or under, which together exceed $10,000
with the intent to avoid bank reporting rules.
.
– Ernest Land: (To Affirm or Deny)

– Robert Baty: Deny

.

Message #17 – From Ernest Land

.

Another evasion, you must be unlearned in english communications. I affirmed my definition, but again I do not waste my time throwing my pearls before swine.

.

Message #18 – From Robert Baty

.

I know what you affirmed, Ernie, and that, indeed, was an evasion of the issue in Kent’s case.
.
I suspect you know that full well, but maybe you are the one that is just too dumb to see it.
.
In any case, if you will explicitly state your affirmation or denial of the following, I will then be glad to go back and show why your evasion is irrelevant to Kent’s legal problems.
.
The Proposition For Ernest Land
.
Structuring requires 2 or more cash transactions,
$10,000 or under, which together exceed $10,000
with the intent to avoid bank reporting rules.
.
– Ernest Land: (To Affirm or Deny)

– Robert Baty: Deny

.

 



Screen Shots of Exchange

.



.

Other References

.

Kent Hovind Is Innocent Website by Brady Byrum

https://kenthovindinnocence.wordpress.com/

.

Kent Hovind Promoting Brady Byrum’s Work

.

Kent Hovind & Brady Byrum From Promotional Video

.

Related Propositions from 65 propositions in Hovind Challenge

http://kehvrlb.com/kent-hovind-v-robert-baty-the-challenge-in-65-propositions

.

Proposition #3
.
Kent Hovind’s 2006 indictment is seriously flawed and fraudulent.
.
– Kent Hovind: Affirm
– Robert Baty: Deny
.
Proposition #4
.
It is not a crime to structure.
.
– Kent Hovind: Affirm
– Robert Baty: Deny
.
Proposition #5
.
You can’t do structuring on a bank account that was opened before 1999.
.
– Kent Hovind: Affirm
– Robert Baty: Deny
.



Comments

Ernest Land v. Robert Baty – Hovind on Structuring! — 3 Comments

  1. It seems like Ernie made a small mistake. He affirmed that structuring is 2 or more transactions “under $10k” instead of “$10,000 or under” that together total “$10k or more” instead of “exceed $10,000” to avoid “bank reporting” instead of “bank reporting rules”. Maybe he didn’t realize that his words didn’t exactly match yours. You could have simply corrected him to move the discussion along. It sounds like Ernie is willing to affirm your definition of structuring, but you are disrespectful, long-winded, and pedantic in your response.

    If an apprentice at a bakery makes a mistake with a small portion of the icing on a cake, would you throw the cake out and make him bake a new cake from scratch? This is what you are doing. You might make a good accountant, but you would be a terrible car salesman. Either you lack the charisma and social skills, or you are deliberately trying to stonewall the “debate” to claim some type of victory in your mind.

  2. No, guest45, it does NOT “sound like Ernie is willing to
    affirm my definition of structuring”.
    .
    Ernie demonstrated he had no interest or intent to come
    to any agreement regarding what the law on structuring
    is as applied to Kent Hovind’s case.
    .
    Ernie’s position, without the quibbles you mentioned,
    was as shown below:
    .
    The Proposition For Ernest Land
    .
    Structuring requires 2 or more cash transactions,
    $10,000 or under, which together exceed $10,000
    with the intent to avoid bank reporting rules.
    .
    – Ernest Land: (To Affirm or Deny)

    – Robert Baty: Deny
    .
    Kent Hovind’s case stands for the proposition, as reflected in the
    law and the regulations, that one transaction may constitute a case
    of structuring.
    .
    See:
    .
    http://kehvrlb.com/structuring-indictment-law-regulation
    .
    .
    Ernie’s position, however, is not particularly relevant.
    .
    It is Kent Hovind who continues to fulfill his pledge to
    spend the rest of his life promoting his false legal
    narrative which is based on his false claim regarding
    what is required for structuring, and it is Kent and his
    position that I try to deal with.
    .

Leave a Reply