Hovind Fears Baty Meme

In 2013 Kent Hovind, through his surrogates, came to me requesting that we talk.  It appears that that effort might have been because Kent was intending to try and influence and exploit the Forbes.com coverage I had been able to generate through Forbes contributor Peter J. Reilly.  In any case, Kent and I had a brief exchange via his CorrLinks prison email account.  It was terminated after it became clear Kent was not intending to have an open, honest conversation regarding his problems and false legal narrative.  In the end, Kent simply terminated the connection and that was that.

One place that exchange is archived is on my YAHOO! discussion group site, which also has graphics of the email documents in its files which are available to members of that list.  Here is the link to one posting there which provides the texts of the emails:


Following are the texts as posted at that link (you might find it easier to read at the above link):



From: info@corrlinks.com
To: Robert Baty
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 06:31:18 -0600

Subject: Inmate : HOVIND, KENT E

This is a system generated message informing you
that the above-named person is a federal prisoner
who seeks to add you to his/her contact list for
exchanging electronic messages.

You can ACCEPT this prisoner’s request or BLOCK
this individual or all federal prisoners from contacting
you via electronic messaging at www.corrlinks.com.

To register with CorrLinks you must enter the email
address that received this notice along with the
identification code below.

Email Address: xxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Identification Code: xxxxxxxxx

This identification code will expire in 10 days.

By approving electronic correspondence with federal
prisoners, you consent to have the Bureau of Prisons
staff monitor the content of all electronic messages

Once you have registered with CorrLinks and approved
the prisoner for correspondence, the prisoner will be
notified electronically.

For additional information related to this program, please
visit the http://www.bop.gov/inmate_programs/trulincs_faq.jsp FAQ page.



To: KENT E HOVIND 06452017
From: Robert Baty
Date/Time: 1/26/2013 9:28:56 AM

Subject: Testing the system


I just thought I would try this out and see if the system
is working while I await your first message.

Robert Baty



From: KENT E HOVIND (06452017)
To: Robert Baty
Date/Time: 1/26/2013 1:20:38 PM

Subject: RE: Testing the system!

Works great!
Sorry it took so long.

I check email here real often so let me know what
you need from me and I’ll help any way I can!




From: Robert Baty
To: Kent Hovind
Date/Time: 1/26/2013 1:32:34 PM

Subject: RE: Testing the system!


Looks like it is working both ways now.

I check my email often, but I am going to have to remember
that this correspondence does not show up in my personal
email box. I have to go to the website, be signed in, and
then check on messages.

Peter J. Reilly, a Grant-Thornton Accounting Office manager
of sorts, and a Forbes on-line contributor, posted the
following note recently at the end of one of his tax columns:

> I am happy to hear from any “patriots”,
> “sovereign citizens” or anybody else who
> thinks that the income tax does not apply
> to ordinary Americans who have sufficient
> taxable income.


Our connections, as I understand them, are a result of that invitation
and in a round about way I was advised of your
interest in taking Peter up on his offer; while preferring
to use me as a go-between instead of corresponding with Peter directly.

Should you wish to correspond directly with Peter, here’s his
email address:


I figured it was you that had something you wanted to get out
for Peter’s consideration as he may be willing to develop a
column or more featuring your case(s).

So, in that context, I would be the one advising you to “let
me know” what you might want me to pass along to Peter.

I advised Peter that we had set up this contact and asked if
he had anything in particular to take up with you. I haven’t
heard back yet, and will continue to ask for specifics should
our correspondence continue.

As for me, my present, personal interest in your cases has to
do with what Jo’s plans are regarding her recent U.S. Tax Court
decision and what you plan on doing regarding the U.S. Tax Court’s
latest order in your case; a response of which is due from you by
January 30, 2013, if you plan to make a response.

I appreciate the opportunity to help facilitate the mutual
interest you and Peter might have in addressing your situation.

Robert Baty



From: KENT E HOVIND (06452017)
To: Robert Baty
Date/Time: 1/26/2013 5:17:49 PM

Subject: Paul- please read my #4 and respond. Thanks! KH



There is a button someplace you can push to make the email
system notify you when one is waiting. Not sure how it works
but Ted can tell you I think.


I’d like to see Peter define some terms first. I learned in the creation
evolutionism debate that defining terms is an essential first step.
What is his definition of patriot? income tax? income? etc. I have
always said that everyone should obey the law and pay any tax they
owe to the legitimate authorities. I do not consider myself a tax protestor
or a law breaker.


I can only have 30 email contacts at a time and you are #30. I can’t
add Peter w/o dropping someone and with the legal battle and my book
projects and family I need the ones I have right now. I guess you can
be go-between if you don’t mind.


I know nothing of Jo’s tax court decision nor did I know I have a deadline
to respond by Jan 30 to anything. They have not notified me of any of this.
I’ve not heard from “tax court” in several years. I think, in America, you get
to face your accusers and cannot be tried “in abstetia” or whatever the Latin
phrase is. Can you send me a copy of the “Tax Court’s latest order” you
reference please? I will cc this to Paul Hansen the ministry trustee since he
handles the legal stuff.


Kent Hovind



From: Robert Baty
To: Kent Hovind
Date/Time: 1/26/2013 5:45:05 PM

Subject: U.S. Tax Court Issues


I will pass along your message to Peter and see if he will
draft a reply for me to forward to you.

I think it is a little late for you to be trying to plead ignorance
regarding the case your brought before the U.S. Tax Court,
via your authorized legal representative, Jerold W. Barringer.
Who knows, though, the Court might have some sympathies
for you if you tell a good tale.

(By the way, would you care to try and convince as to why it
is you might be uninformed regarding Jo’s recent U.S. Tax Court decision?)

You are the moving party in your U.S. Tax Court case. You sued to
have the Tax Court take jurisdiction over the determination of your
tax matters, and they did, and then you failed to prosecute your
case and it is now on the verge of being decided “in absentia”, as it were.

Here’s the text of the latest as publicly available on the U.S. Tax Court website:




Kent Hovind,


v. Docket No. 4245-10.




As directed by the Court in its Order dated
December 17, 2012, respondent filed a Motion
for Entry of Decision on December 26, 2012.

Upon due consideration, it is ORDERED that,
on or before January 30, 2013, petitioner
shall file an Objection, Notice of No
Objection, or other Response to respondent’s
motion for entry of decision.

Failure to comply with this Order will result
in the granting of respondent’s motion and
entry of decision sustaining the determinations
set forth in the notice of deficiency on which
this case is based.

(Signed) Michael B. Thornton
Chief Judge
Dated. Washington, D.C.
January 9, 2013


(end Tax Court Order text)

I will be in touch later and consider other matters as I get time.

As much as I would like to continue to be directly involved, if you
decide the process would be more efficient by communicating directly
with Peter, I could give up my #30 spot and you could plug him in.

Just a thought.

Robert Baty



From: KENT E HOVIND (06452017)
Date/Time: 1/26/2013 6:47:17 PM

Subject: RE: Testing the system!

Hey Robert!

One more thot.

Please go on www.2peter3.com and read:

> The Banker’s Letter;
> The Third Affidavit and
> Doc. #365


and tell me what you think.

Please ask Peter to do the same.




From: Robert Baty
To: Kent Hovind
Date/Time: 1/26/2013 7:34:03 PM

Subject: A review of those documents you mentioned!


I think I found the clicker to get me notified in my personal
email when you send me a message via CorrLinks. Ted, as
you suggested, clued me in.

As to your request regarding reading material:


http://www.2peter3.com/Court_Docs/banker letter .pdf

The banker’s letter

My comments:

I notice it was signed “an anonymous patriot, for now”.

Alleged testimonials from anonymous “bankers” does nothing
for me as it might relate to your criminal case.

As I understand it, under our “rule of law”, anonymous bankers
and defendants like you do not get to decide questions of law;
that’s left for the judiciary. Even juries are only charged with
deciding factual and not legal issues (i.e., did Kent Hovind spit
on the sidewalk).


http://www.2peter3.com/3rd affidavit.html

The Third Affidavit

My Comments:

I’ve browsed through that 10 pages and didn’t see anything
in particular to impress me about anything in particular except
that it seemed quite typical of “tax protestor” antics in producing
as much “paper” as they can to put into the system.

Kent, can you identify one, simple matter contained therein that
you may wish to discuss more specifically?



Document #365 – Hovind’s Memorandum of Law to Support Motion
to Vacate and Set Aside or Correct Sentence

My Comments:

Who wrote that for you, Kent?

It’s over 2 years old; didn’t work!

You have filed “a 100” motions and, as I noted above, they are
consistent with the antics of “tax protestors” who, among other
things, like to clog the system with paper work.

You were tried and found wanting, Kent.

Your appeals were considered on their merits.
Your motions were considered on their merits.

It doesn’t matter what you think about the propriety of the law
as it is applied to you and it doesn’t matter what I think about
that; though we might have some interesting conversations about

When push comes to shove, we have a judiciary responsible for
deciding any disputes between you and me and the feds over
such things as put you behind bars and at risk for millions in
personal, income tax liabilities.

If there is something specific you want to chat about in that
document, Kent, detail it, briefly, and maybe I can discuss that
with you further.

By the way Kent, what, if any, connections or personal knowledge
do you have with Ed Umpervitch who I chatted with a bit about
such things via your FaceBook page?

He most recently dropped out of that conversation.

Robert Baty



From: Robert Baty
To: Kent Hovind
Date/Time: 1/26/2013 9:17:12 PM

Subject: A quick note from Peter!


Following my name below is the brief note I got from Peter in
response to me sending him your note with your questions for
him. He’s pressed for time and so may have more to say later.
You might also wish to give me more specific information, commentary,
analysis, opinions, whatever from you to forward to him for further
consideration. He will have to work through the details as he gets
time, not knowing right now where the exchange might lead.

Also, in relation to Peter’s comments, and your earlier claim of
ignorance regarding your own U.S. Tax Court case, I offer the
following comments from an earlier U.S. Tax Court decision in your case:



v. Docket No. 4245-10.




the Court notes that the record in this case
is replete with patently frivolous and groundless
arguments by petitioner, acting by and through
his counsel, Mr. Jerold W. Barringer.

Petitioner is advised that I.R.C. section 6673(a)
(1) authorizes the Tax Court to require a taxpayer
to pay to the United States a penalty of up to
$25,000 whenever it appears that proceedings have
been instituted or maintained by the taxpayer
primarily for delay or that the taxpayer’s
position in such proceedings is frivolous or

(Signed) John O. Colvin
Dated: Washington, D.C.

September 20, 2010


Robert Baty

From: peterreillycpa@gmail.com
To: rlbaty@webtv.net
Date: Sat, 26 Jan 2013 22:01:09 -0500

Subject: Re: Kent wants you to answer some questions first!

Basically someone who puts forth arguments
that they are not required to file or pay
that have consistently been found to be

For example the 16th amendment not having
been ratified.



From: KENT E HOVIND (06452017)
To: Robert Baty
Date/Time: 1/26/2013 11:11:36 PM

Subject: RE: U.S. Tax Court Issues


As I said, I’ve not heard from them or
Jerry Barringer or been served anything
in several years.




From: KENT E HOVIND (06452017)
To: Robert Baty
Date/Time: 1/26/2013 11:13:01 PM

Subject: RE: U.S. Tax Court Issues

I can’t get on the internet here but
would love to see the recent ruling
in my wife’s case.

Can you send that please?




From: Robert Baty
To: Kent Hovind
Date/Time: 1/26/2013 11:22:01 PM

Subject: Jo’s case and other stuff!


Following my name below is the text of Jo’s entered decision,
which followed a written opinion from the Court. Forbes’
Peter J. Reilly published a column on the case when it came out.

In effect, Jo was deemed to be liable for the tax on 50% of the
ministry income, plus the penalties and interest. Total of
something over $3.5 million tax, penalty and interest according
to my rough estimates.

As to your case, since you have Barringer representing you,
supposedly, he would be the one getting or being sent all the

By the way, you haven’t tried to convince me why it may be
the case that you are unaware of Jo’s case. What’s up with that?

Robert Baty

P.S. The period for appeal is still running on Jo’s case.


Dkt. No. 1362-10



Respondent .


Pursuant to the opinion of the Court. filed
October 3, 2012, and incorporating herein the
facts recited in respondent’s computation as
the findings of the Court, it is


That there are deficiencies, penalties, and
additions to tax due from petitioner as follows:

Year – Deficiency – 6651(a)(1) – 6663(a)

1998 $ 51,314.00 $13,212.00 $ 38,485.50
1999 $ 92,741.00 $23,185.25 $ 69,555.75
2000 $ 93,541.00 $23,385.25 $ 70,155.75
2001 $ 72,720.00 $18,180.00 $ 54,540.00
2002 $ 72,579.00 $18,144.75 $ 54,434.25
2003 $ 64,486.00 $16,121.00 $ 48,364.50
2004 $130,104.00 $32,526.00 $ 97,578.00
2005 $145,365.00 $36,341.25 $109,023.75
2006 $ 69,917.00 $17,479.25 $ 52,437.75

December 18, 2012

(Signed) L. Paige Marvel

Entered: 2012



From: KENT E HOVIND (06452017)
To: Robert Baty
Date/Time: 1/27/2013 10:04:11 AM

Subject: RE: A review of those documents you mentioned!

“tried and found wanting…?

judiciary decides questions of law…

didn’t work…

Does that prove guilt?
Does it prove a law was broken?
Could it be corruption from the courts?
The gov?
Do courts and judges ever make mistakes?
Misread or misapply the law?
Why is there an appeals process?
Why are there Appeals courts?
Do cases ever get overturned on appeal?

The US Supreme Court-supposedly the top judges in
the country very often spits 5/4 and rarely votes

What would that mean about reading the law?

Through history there have been scores of cases
where the courts ruled one way that history later
showed to be 100% wrong.

Slavery in US, Hitler’s judges ruling on Jews,
Stalin’s on Christians etc.

I think you may be assuming more of our court
system in this case than you should.

Gotta go now-
more later if time permits.




From: KENT E HOVIND (06452017)
To: Robert Baty
Date/Time: 1/27/2013 11:32:34 AM

Subject: RE: A review of those documents you mentioned!

Time for one more quick comment only–

The banker was a good friend I met in prison.

He chose to remain anonymous until he was released.

I don’t know where he is now or if he has commented
to identify himself.

His name doesn’t matter but the issues do.

The 45 counts I was charged with are flawed for a number
of reasons spelled out in document 335, 349 and 351 in my

If the charge in the indictment is wrong the court lacks
jurisdiction to hear the case.

It is NEVER too late to challenge jurisdiction.
This is NOT over yet. 🙂

Since there are still issues being litigated I cannot
comment much but I will continue on this one topic only
if you will answer a few simple questions first.


Did I break the law Title 31 USC 5313(A),
5324 (a)(3) and 31 CRF 103.11?

I’m not asking if the court found me guilty.

Can you please read the above referenced documents
and the banker’s letter and show me specifically
what I did that was illegal?


IF withdrawing ministry money to pay ministry bills
in amounts less than $10,000, 12 days apart did
violate that law- should it have been one count or 45?




From: Robert Baty
To: Kent Hovind
Date/Time: 1/27/2013 7:46:33 PM

Subject: Your latest 2 Emails earlier today!


I was trusting CorrLinks to let me know when you sent me
messages, as it had started doing, but I didn’t get any
notices and just decided to check in and found your messages.

I don’t think I am assuming any more than I should regarding
our court system and your case. It wouldn’t matter if I was.
It’s your case, and that’s a matter for you to work out with the judiciary.

As I understand it, you’ve tried that about 100 times and all has failed.

Last I checked, there wasn’t anything going on regarding your
criminal case.

If there is something currently in process as you claim, give me a
legal reference that I can check on and I will look into it and maybe
give you my opinion on it.

You are right about the banker, but it goes a little further.
Neither his name or opinion matters when it comes to deciding
on the facts of your case, the law, or how the law applies to the
facts of your case.

The judge, jury and appeals courts have ruled on what matters as
to the issues that matter in your case, and that’s how it works.

As to your request about my Title 31 analysis as applied to your
case, I will see if can find time to look at it and respond in detail.
Are you prepared to plead guilty if I show you what you did that
was illegal, whether or not you agree with my analysis? Will my
opinion on that matter be relevant.

As to your cash transaction question, if you violated the rule 45
times then 45 charges would appear to be appropriate to me.

Back to your Tax Court deadline, Kent! Have you got any specific
plans about what to do about that yet. Also, are you going to try
and convince me, as I have repeatedly requested, why it is you,
allegedly, were unaware of the status of your wife’s Tax Court case?

Sorry for the delay in responding.

Robert Baty



From: Robert Baty
To: Kent Hovind
Time/Date: 1/27/2013 8:47:22 PM

Subject: The banker’s letter and structuring rules!


Let me expand a little on your banker problem before
responding on the structuring issue.

Your anonymous banker proposes to tell me how things
are/were and promotes himself as if he is qualified and
credible regarding his promotion of the alleged facts and
law and should be given some consideration. Interesting
how the letter does not appear to mention that he is a
convicted felon and the charges for which he was convicted.

Ad hominem is not fallacious when proposing that, in such
situations, such witnesses’ credibility may be reasonably
doubted both as to the factual claims and legal analysis.

Kent, you wrote in part, asking:

> Can you please read the referenced
> documents and the banker’s letter
> and show me specifically what I
> did that was illegal?


I don’t like chasing rabbits, so you really need to get down
to what you are getting at, with specifics, if you have a point
you want to make. I don’t like guessing at what you might
want me to get out of such references.

I like short, sweet, and to the point.

In this case, however, I will give it a shot.

The references, in part, follow my name below. This analysis
is subject to a further review of your case as I might get the
time and have the interest or some additional, specific, explicit,
feedback from you.

Your Question:



My Answer, from attached references:

> Structured financial transactions to
> evade financial reporting rules.
> Such structuring does not require a
> transaction of more than $10,000.


I claim no expertise in that area, so if there is some specific
you are getting at, Kent, let me know.

Robert Baty


Title 31 USC 5313(A)

31 USC § 5313 – Reports on domestic coins and currency transactions

(a) When a domestic financial institution is involved in a transaction
for the payment, receipt, or transfer of United States coins or currency
(or other monetary instruments the Secretary of the Treasury prescribes),
in an amount, denomination, or amount and denomination, or under
circumstances the Secretary prescribes by regulation, the institution
and any other participant in the transaction the Secretary may prescribe
shall file a report on the transaction at the time and in the way the
Secretary prescribes.

A participant acting for another person shall make the report as the
agent or bailee of the person and identify the person for whom the
transaction is being made.

Title 31 USC 5324 (a)(3)

31 USC § 5324 – Structuring transactions to evade reporting requirement

(a) Domestic Coin and Currency Transactions Involving Financial Institutions.—

No person shall, for the purpose of evading the reporting requirements
of section 5313 (a) or 5325 or any regulation prescribed under any such
section, the reporting or recordkeeping requirements imposed by any
order issued under section 5326, or the recordkeeping requirements
imposed by any regulation prescribed under section 21 of the Federal
Deposit Insurance Act or section 123 of Public Law 91–508—

(3) structure or assist in structuring, or attempt to structure or assist
in structuring, any transaction with one or more domestic financial institutions.

31 CRF 103.11

Title 31: Money and Finance: Treasury

Subtitle B: Regulations Relating to Money and Finance


Subpart A: Definitions

103.11 – Meaning of terms.


(gg) Structure (structuring).

For purposes of section 103.53, a person structures
a transaction if that person, acting alone, or in
conjunction with, or on behalf of, other persons,
conducts or attempts to conduct one or more transactions
in currency, in any amount, at one or more financial
institutions, on one or more days, in any manner, for
the purpose of evading the reporting requirements under
section 103.22 of this part.

“In any manner” includes, but is not limited to, the
breaking down of a single sum of currency exceeding
$10,000 into smaller sums, including sums at or below
$10,000, or the conduct of a transaction, or series
of currency transactions, including transactions at
or below $10,000.

The transaction or transactions need not exceed the
$10,000 reporting threshold at any single financial
institution on any single day in order to constitute
structuring within the meaning of this definition.



From: KENT E HOVIND (06452017)
To: Robert Baty
Date/Time: 1/28/2013 7:06:10 AM

Subject: RE: The banker’s letter and structuring rules!

I already KNOW what the law says and what
I was charged with.

My question is simple-do YOU think I was properly
charged (docs 334-338) and actually broke that law?




From: KENT E HOVIND (06452017)
To: Robert Baty
Date/Time: 1/28/2013 7:20:54 AM

Subject: RE: Your latest 2 Emails earlier today!

The jury never saw the law I was accused of violating.

The appeals court never looks at that either.

They look at “did the jugde follow proceedure?”

By charging 45 crimes instead of one (as scores fo
other ‘structuring’ cases have been) it looks horrible
to the jury.

This is a common tactic (and illegal – overcharging)
but normaly convinces the jury that he MUST have done

No one else who has analysed the law and the indictment
and the trial has said I am guilty.

Please do show me specifically how withdrawing your
own money from your own bank to pay legit bills in
12 day ave. intervals violates the statute.

If I did then anyone who takes $10/week out in cash
every week will eventually be guilty of 100 counts of
structuring and could face 500 years in prison. (5yrs/count).

If 45 charges are appropriate then you are saying anyone
who withdraws their own money in an amount less than
$10,000 one time is guilty and should go to prison for
5 years.

Is that what you think?
One topic at a time-remember? 🙂




From: Robert Baty
To: Kent Hovind
Date/Time: 1/28/2013 8:50:28 AM

Subject: Step by Step!


I can handle more than one topic at a time, but we just
need to keep them simple as we attempt to breeze through
them and allow you to get the word out that you might want
Peter to consider as he might be posting one or more columns
to Forbes regarding your case and similar cases.

Before going on to possible new matters, let’s review some
old matters and your latest messages, and see how they go.


You haven’t said what, if any, your current plans are regarding
your January 30, 2013 U.S. Tax Court deadline.

What current plans do you have regarding that matter?


You haven’t tried to convince me, as I have repeatedly asked,
why it is you were unaware of Jo’s U.S. Tax Court decision.

How could you not have known about that recent decision?


You wrote this morning, asking:

> Do YOU (Robert Baty) think I was properly
> charged (docs 334-338) and actually broke
> that law?




You wrote this morning:

> No one else who has analysed the law and the
> indictment and the trial has said I am guilty.


If you have any specific references of lawyers and/or
C.P.A.’s who have considered your case and have written
opinions on the matter, I will be glad to consider them.
I think this would be also something that Peter could use.

He’s a CPA.
I’m not a lawyer or a CPA.

I am not talking about references and analysis from folks
like Barringer, anonymous bankers, Paul Hansen, and Glenn Stoll.

But, I will be glad to consider your references if you have them.


> If 45 charges are appropriate then you are
> saying anyone who withdraws their own money
> in an amount less than $10,000 one time is
> guilty and should go to prison for 5 years.
> Is that what you think?


Your claim about what I am saying is not correct.
No, that is not what I am saying.

The crime of structuring has to do with your effort to
evade the reporting requirements of financial institutions.

In part, as I understand the application of the law,
it has to do with intent; a frame of mind.

The jury doesn’t read minds, but is called upon to look
at the evidence in a case and make their judgment as
to whether or not you were evading the reporting rules.

I think we know what the jury decided.

They thought your case was so egregious that you got
the enhanced 10 year sentence.






You are welcome to keep trying to change a result in your
criminal case, and it is unlikely that my casual opinions about
the case are going to change the outcome. I am open to
considering a change in my opinion, and you are welcome to
try. Just try to keep it short and simple and specific.


I get that you don’t seem to think you were properly charged
as to the law violated and that one violation of the misapplied
law should have been all that was allowed.


Now, are there other matters to consider, and do I start getting
answers to my questions?

We can continue to explore further your criminal case details if
you wish.

I am here as the go-between in an effort to facilitate your effort
to inform and enlighten Peter J. Reilly as to your case(s) and possibly
publish one or more columns explaining your situation and opining thereon.

Robert Baty



From: KENT E HOVIND (06452017)
To: Robert Baty
Date/Time: 1/28/2013 8:50:45 AM

Subject: RE: Your latest 2 Emails earlier today!

One more thot on the same topic.

If structuring requires TWO or more transactions of
less than $10,000 on the same day (and it does) that
total MORE than $10,000 how can there be 45 counts
in my indictment?

The MAX would be 22 counts.

The indictment is fatally flawed therefore the court
lack jurisdiction to even hear the case.

The indictment must still be dismissed and the case

Are you seeking for truth or seeking to get me to
confess to a crime I (and scores of others) do not
think I committed?

What is your motive in all this?

You asked if I would admit I was guilty…

Will YOU admit I was NOT guilty if that is where the
evidence leads?

History records hundreds of thousands of WRONG decisions
that hurt others badly you know.

Have a great day! 🙂




From: Robert Baty
To: Kent Hovind
Date/Time: 1/28/2013 9:06:20 AM

Subject: Response to your “one more time” message!


I’ll try to briefly respond to your latest:

You wrote:

> If structuring requires TWO or more
> transactions of less than $10,000 on
> the same day (and it does)…


I don’t think it does.

You wrote:

You wrote:

> The indictment is fatally flawed therefore
> the court lack jurisdiction to even hear
> the case.


I doubt it, but that is a matter for you to take up on
appeal. I trust the legal system to deal with such
issues and not “laymen”, but I’m open to considering
the matter further if you can keep it simple.

You wrote:

> The indictment must still be dismissed
> and the case overturned.


I don’t think so, but we’ll see how that position works out for you.

You wrote:

> Are you seeking for truth or seeking to
> get me to confess to a crime I (and scores
> of others) do not think I committed?


I will follow the search for the truth wherever it may lead us,
with or without any confessions or change of minds.

You wrote:

> What is your motive in all this?


To act as the go-between as to you and Peter, as I explained
in my last message. Otherwise, you and your cases have been
of interest to me for years and so I am personally interested in
this further personal dialogue.

Peter is rather busy, and I will forward to you any specific
commentary he may have, and his questions whenever he may
be able to present them for you.

You wrote:

> Will YOU admit I was NOT guilty if
> that is where the evidence leads?


The judicial process provides for a determination of guilt “in the
eyes of the law”, but you are welcome to my opinion.

For all I know, you were guilty.

Now, what about those questions I have been asking?

Robert Baty



From: admin@inmatemessage.com
To: Robert Baty
Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2013 11:04:29 -0600

Subject: Inmate: HOVIND, KENT E

The above-named inmate has chosen to
remove your email address from his/her
approved contact list and, therefore,
can not receive or send messages to
your email address.




Hovind v. Baty – The CorrLinks Exchange — 1 Comment

Leave a Reply